It's that time of the month. No, not that time of the month, but the time where I post headlines about California Highways. Here's what I found of interest over the month. As always, ready, set, discuss.
https://cahighways.org/wordpress/?p=16122
That detour of CA 4 through the San Joaquin River Delta onto Byron Highway is going to make a brutal commuting drive all the more brutal. Both highways are far beyond obsolete at this point and need substantial expansion to contend with traffic loads.
Amusingly a lot of us were talking about I-15 and the new agriculture station backups on Facebook. The old station at minimum could be bypassed by way of Old US 91/466 on Yermo Road. I'm to understand a lot of people now take US 95 and I-40 to avoid the traffic backups on weekends on I-15 at the new agriculture station in Primm. I've personally found taking NV 160, State Line Road, CA 127, CA 190, Trona-Wildrose Road and CA 178 to be an easier route back over I-15/CA 58 back to San Joaquin Valley.
I'm finding myself disappointed that AZ 30 isn't numbered AZ 404 to keep some continuity with the Loop Freeways. Granted AZ 143 and AZ 24 are numbers plucked out of thin air also. Kind of a shame considering that Arizona used to have really orderly State Highway Numbering conventions.
I'm not surprised that CHP wasn't going to allow a detour of the Bixby Bridge down Old Coast Road. The locals absolutely hate when people pass through Old Coast Road and park along the ledges above Bixby Creek. I've driven it a couple times myself, at times it can be in good repair but the grade an erode heavily in the winter.
Well, well, well........something I predicted two years ago is happening, or, more precisely, trying to happen. When the HDC's (High Desert Corridor) freeway component was cancelled in 2019, I said that that move would probably precipitate a corresponding move to raise CA 138 and CA 18 between Palmdale and Victorville to freeway standard as a stand-alone project. Now it looks like Metro is taking the rather ballsy move of trying to shunt part of the budget for the original corridor, which still exists as a future rail and non-vehicular facility, to the development of that parallel freeway. As would be expected, the critics of freeway development and their frequent media outlet, Streetsblog, aren't terribly thrilled with this prospect. But knowing L.A.'s Metro, they'll retort with an assertation that the freeway wasn't fully deleted under the previous agreement, merely shelved -- and they simply took it down from the shelf! Nevertheless, it's likely that a move such as this one will provoke protracted litigation. As a former resident of the eastern portion of the affected area here, I would not at all be surprised if the CA 18 portion of this project, if actually developed, curves north west of Victorville and at some point merges with the corresponding eastern end of the original HDC in order to avoid residential zones in western Victorville and southern Adelanto as well as tie in to the Apple Valley CA 18 bypass expressway -- something that would really tweak the noses of the roadway project's more vocal critics. As the old cinema dialogue once said: "fasten your seatbelts; it's going to be a bumpy ride!"
Quote from: sparker on August 01, 2021, 01:59:01 AM
Well, well, well........something I predicted two years ago is happening, or, more precisely, trying to happen. When the HDC's (High Desert Corridor) freeway component was cancelled in 2019, I said that that move would probably precipitate a corresponding move to raise CA 138 and CA 18 between Palmdale and Victorville to freeway standard as a stand-alone project. [...] As the old cinema dialogue once said: "fasten your seatbelts; it's going to be a bumpy ride!"
Although then again, if they diverts some of the funds to actually improve Route 18 between 138 and I-15, that would be great. It currently is a *really* bumpy ride -- so bumpy in fact that my wife prefers to either us I-15 to the 210 to the 118, or across the 58 to the 14 and down, when we drive back from Vegas, after she gets shaken, not stirred, taking 138 and 18 when we go out (we live in the Valley, and I tend to hate going across 210/Cajon Pass when there is the nice uncrowded Pearblossom Hwy awaiting).
I see that the I-80/Yolo Causeway project got mentioned a ton in this set of updates (with multiple articles)...I have way too many memories of driving through there and getting stuck in traffic back when I lived in Sacramento. During the time I worked in Rancho Cordova I would almost always bypass it on Fridays via the 160 corridor en route to the Bay Area.
Interesting to see articles on two 'wildlife corridor crossings', to be constructed across CA 17 and US 101. If it helps in reducing vehicle-wildlife collisions, all the better...
Quote from: cahwyguy on August 01, 2021, 09:04:01 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 01, 2021, 01:59:01 AM
Well, well, well........something I predicted two years ago is happening, or, more precisely, trying to happen. When the HDC's (High Desert Corridor) freeway component was cancelled in 2019, I said that that move would probably precipitate a corresponding move to raise CA 138 and CA 18 between Palmdale and Victorville to freeway standard as a stand-alone project. [...] As the old cinema dialogue once said: "fasten your seatbelts; it's going to be a bumpy ride!"
Although then again, if they diverts some of the funds to actually improve Route 18 between 138 and I-15, that would be great. It currently is a *really* bumpy ride -- so bumpy in fact that my wife prefers to either us I-15 to the 210 to the 118, or across the 58 to the 14 and down, when we drive back from Vegas, after she gets shaken, not stirred, taking 138 and 18 when we go out (we live in the Valley, and I tend to hate going across 210/Cajon Pass when there is the nice uncrowded Pearblossom Hwy awaiting).
When I was a kid living in Glendale, and we were visiting my mom's niece in Las Vegas (early/mid-'60's), my dad always went out via what was then Newhall and out 138 through Pearblossom and then heading straight toward Victorville on what would be signed as CA 18 by 1968. Even though I-10 to (then) I-15 at Colton then north had no stop signs or signals, being all freeway or expressway, he preferred the cross-desert trip just because it was less crowded. Never saw much; both coming and going happened at night through that area -- but it stuck with me, and for years afterward if my trip began anywhere near or west of central L.A., I'd head out 14, Pearblossom, and 138. But it seems a shame that Metro has to go through major convolutions just to get improvements out in the desert (although they're heads above their Bay Area counterparts in even considering major road projects) -- and the project critics should have seen something like the potential funding shift coming when they managed to shut down the freeway segment of the original HDC. Maybe in the back of their minds they think that if regional needs go unaddressed, they'll somehow just go away -- or that the area residents will suddenly clamor for vastly expanded public transit in an area where that wouldn't be efficient. Or maybe they're hoping against hope that folks will move back over the hill and let the desert revert back to its pre-WWII state. But of course, that just isn't going to happen; the Victorville/etc. high desert region is already starting to "infill" with more dense development near I-15 and US 395, gradually resembling more traditional city structure. For better or worse, the inverse equation regarding commute distance and housing cost persists; as long as it does, the area will grow -- but not necessarily expand at its perimeters, since services and amenities do have their linear limitations.
Quote from: M3100 on August 01, 2021, 05:16:18 PM
Interesting to see articles on two 'wildlife corridor crossings', to be constructed across CA 17 and US 101. If it helps in reducing vehicle-wildlife collisions, all the better...
There have also been articles in the past months on crossings, using modified culverts, on both Route 118 and on Route 60 through the badlands.
Quote from: sparker on August 01, 2021, 05:26:15 PM
When I was a kid living in Glendale, and we were visiting my mom's niece in Las Vegas (early/mid-'60's), my dad always went out via what was then Newhall and out 138 through Pearblossom and then heading straight toward Victorville on what would be signed as CA 18 by 1968. Even though I-10 to (then) I-15 at Colton then north had no stop signs or signals, being all freeway or expressway, he preferred the cross-desert trip just because it was less crowded. Never saw much; both coming and going happened at night through that area -- but it stuck with me, and for years afterward if my trip began anywhere near or west of central L.A., I'd head out 14, Pearblossom, and 138.
My preference has always been for Pearblossom to Ave T, up to Palmdale Blvd, then up to El Mirage Rd, then down to Air Expwy, pretty close to the HDC alignment. I've probably driven that 100 times in reverse, on my way home from the desert to L.A., and it's always blissfully empty.
Re: 71/91 Interchange Improvement Project -- no mention of widening the last few miles of 71. They've widened the rest, but the widening from Central Ave to CA-83 is just wasted pavement until they can have six lanes all the way to 91.
Re: Ridge Route Preservation Organization newsletter. Calling US-99 or I-5 over the mountains the "Ridge Route" makes no sense because it doesn't follow the ridge the way the original road did. And calling it all the "Grapevine" is pointless, because you don't really need a name for the whole thing. Lots of people think the "Grapevine" is the 5-mile grade north of Castaic, and have no idea of what it originally referred to. Although in fairness, there aren't very many grapes left in Grapevine Canyon.
Quote from: pderocco on August 02, 2021, 02:15:37 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 01, 2021, 05:26:15 PM
When I was a kid living in Glendale, and we were visiting my mom's niece in Las Vegas (early/mid-'60's), my dad always went out via what was then Newhall and out 138 through Pearblossom and then heading straight toward Victorville on what would be signed as CA 18 by 1968. Even though I-10 to (then) I-15 at Colton then north had no stop signs or signals, being all freeway or expressway, he preferred the cross-desert trip just because it was less crowded. Never saw much; both coming and going happened at night through that area -- but it stuck with me, and for years afterward if my trip began anywhere near or west of central L.A., I'd head out 14, Pearblossom, and 138.
My preference has always been for Pearblossom to Ave T, up to Palmdale Blvd, then up to El Mirage Rd, then down to Air Expwy, pretty close to the HDC alignment. I've probably driven that 100 times in reverse, on my way home from the desert to L.A., and it's always blissfully empty.
Yeah -- if there's road work on 18 and/or 138, El Mirage is a decent alternative, even if the pavement's a bit sketchy, particularly in SB County. A few odd "jogs" along the way, but if you have GPS or even a decent Auto Club regional map, it's not difficult to navigate.
Quote from: pderocco on August 02, 2021, 02:37:11 AM
Re: 71/91 Interchange Improvement Project -- no mention of widening the last few miles of 71. They've widened the rest, but the widening from Central Ave to CA-83 is just wasted pavement until they can have six lanes all the way to 91.
Speaking of the 71/91 interchange; hopefully they'll be able to make use of the bridge bents that have been in the Santa Ana river channel for the past 30 years! Carving out 6 lanes along 71 north of there won't be easy; it was difficult enough getting 4 lanes out of it back in 2001 when the last widening occurred. It's D8 territory, so it might actually be done given time; but the chances are that it won't be prioritized unless congestion starts occurring outside peak commute hours.
Quote from: pderocco on August 02, 2021, 02:49:14 AM
Re: Ridge Route Preservation Organization newsletter. Calling US-99 or I-5 over the mountains the "Ridge Route" makes no sense because it doesn't follow the ridge the way the original road did. And calling it all the "Grapevine" is pointless, because you don't really need a name for the whole thing. Lots of people think the "Grapevine" is the 5-mile grade north of Castaic, and have no idea of what it originally referred to. Although in fairness, there aren't very many grapes left in Grapevine Canyon.
For that matter calling the alignment of US 99 through Piru Gorge Ridge Route Alternate didn't make much sense either. I guess it is accurate in that it was an alternative to the Old Ridge Route when it opened. The Piru Gorge alignment straddled even less ridges than Interstate 5 does today. Most CHPW materials refer anything north of Tejon Pass to San Joaquin Valley via Grapevine Canyon as the "Grapevine Grade." That likely is the origin of the term "The Grapevine" came to be and somehow ended up being bastardized into referring to I-5 north of Castaic.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 02, 2021, 08:35:51 AM
Quote from: pderocco on August 02, 2021, 02:49:14 AM
Re: Ridge Route Preservation Organization newsletter. Calling US-99 or I-5 over the mountains the "Ridge Route" makes no sense because it doesn't follow the ridge the way the original road did. And calling it all the "Grapevine" is pointless, because you don't really need a name for the whole thing. Lots of people think the "Grapevine" is the 5-mile grade north of Castaic, and have no idea of what it originally referred to. Although in fairness, there aren't very many grapes left in Grapevine Canyon.
For that matter calling the alignment of US 99 through Piru Gorge Ridge Route Alternate didn't make much sense either. I guess it is accurate in that it was an alternative to the Old Ridge Route when it opened. The Piru Gorge alignment straddled even less ridges than Interstate 5 does today. Most CHPW materials refer anything north of Tejon Pass to San Joaquin Valley via Grapevine Canyon as the "Grapevine Grade." That likely is the origin of the term "The Grapevine" came to be and somehow ended up being bastardized into referring to I-5 north of Castaic.
Back when I was very young, my dad referred to pretty much all of US 99 from Castaic north over the top and down into the valley as the "grapevine" -- not so much as a reference to the town/canyon at the north end but because of its curving configuration -- not much in the way of any lengthy straight sections until (NB) a few miles south of Gorman -- which was also my impression as a kid. But what impressed me later on was the way that I-5 was pushed through the mountains -- both carriageway-separated sections -- the one north of Castaic and the northernmost section bracketing Grapevine itself -- utilized the original 4-lane alignment as one of the directions (NB on the grade out of Castaic and SB out of the Valley) with new-terrain construction constituting the opposite direction, with optimal configuration for downhill high-speed travel, including truck provisions. Of course the Piru Gorge section was an exception, since much of it was slated to be inundated when the dam/reservoir was constructed (as part of the California Aqueduct project). Even so, my dad
still referred to the mountain crossing -- even at 8 lanes -- as the "grapevine". I guess old habits just tend to stick around!
I think that most of the people you talk to in the Bay Area would be confused if you talked about "driving over Tejon Pass", "taking the Ridge Route", or any other terms like that which make perfect sense to us roadgeeks. As noted before, most lay people refer to that entire 50 mile stretch of I-5 between Wheeler Ridge and Castaic as "the Grapevine".
Quote from: jdbx on August 03, 2021, 01:10:24 PM
I think that most of the people you talk to in the Bay Area would be confused if you talked about "driving over Tejon Pass", "taking the Ridge Route", or any other terms like that which make perfect sense to us roadgeeks. As noted before, most lay people refer to that entire 50 mile stretch of I-5 between Wheeler Ridge and Castaic as "the Grapevine".
Which is odd because that's SoCal slang to say "The Phrase."
The heck you say.
Quote from: sparker on August 02, 2021, 09:09:22 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 02, 2021, 08:35:51 AM
Quote from: pderocco on August 02, 2021, 02:49:14 AM
Re: Ridge Route Preservation Organization newsletter. Calling US-99 or I-5 over the mountains the "Ridge Route" makes no sense because it doesn't follow the ridge the way the original road did. And calling it all the "Grapevine" is pointless, because you don't really need a name for the whole thing. Lots of people think the "Grapevine" is the 5-mile grade north of Castaic, and have no idea of what it originally referred to. Although in fairness, there aren't very many grapes left in Grapevine Canyon.
For that matter calling the alignment of US 99 through Piru Gorge Ridge Route Alternate didn't make much sense either. I guess it is accurate in that it was an alternative to the Old Ridge Route when it opened. The Piru Gorge alignment straddled even less ridges than Interstate 5 does today. Most CHPW materials refer anything north of Tejon Pass to San Joaquin Valley via Grapevine Canyon as the "Grapevine Grade." That likely is the origin of the term "The Grapevine" came to be and somehow ended up being bastardized into referring to I-5 north of Castaic.
Back when I was very young, my dad referred to pretty much all of US 99 from Castaic north over the top and down into the valley as the "grapevine" -- not so much as a reference to the town/canyon at the north end but because of its curving configuration -- not much in the way of any lengthy straight sections until (NB) a few miles south of Gorman -- which was also my impression as a kid. But what impressed me later on was the way that I-5 was pushed through the mountains -- both carriageway-separated sections -- the one north of Castaic and the northernmost section bracketing Grapevine itself -- utilized the original 4-lane alignment as one of the directions (NB on the grade out of Castaic and SB out of the Valley) with new-terrain construction constituting the opposite direction, with optimal configuration for downhill high-speed travel, including truck provisions. Of course the Piru Gorge section was an exception, since much of it was slated to be inundated when the dam/reservoir was constructed (as part of the California Aqueduct project). Even so, my dad still referred to the mountain crossing -- even at 8 lanes -- as the "grapevine". I guess old habits just tend to stick around!
This history was very interesting. As a recent immigrant to So Cal, I had no idea there was a historical Grapevine Canyon. I had thought the name's origin was similar to Spaghetti Junction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghetti_junction) (in a number of places) or the DC Beltline's Mixing Bowl (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_Interchange). I had also thought that the Grapevine was everything on I-5 north of the Antelope Valley Freeway exit. Thanks for the background.
Quote from: skluth on August 05, 2021, 02:38:10 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 02, 2021, 09:09:22 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 02, 2021, 08:35:51 AM
Quote from: pderocco on August 02, 2021, 02:49:14 AM
Re: Ridge Route Preservation Organization newsletter. Calling US-99 or I-5 over the mountains the "Ridge Route" makes no sense because it doesn't follow the ridge the way the original road did. And calling it all the "Grapevine" is pointless, because you don't really need a name for the whole thing. Lots of people think the "Grapevine" is the 5-mile grade north of Castaic, and have no idea of what it originally referred to. Although in fairness, there aren't very many grapes left in Grapevine Canyon.
For that matter calling the alignment of US 99 through Piru Gorge Ridge Route Alternate didn't make much sense either. I guess it is accurate in that it was an alternative to the Old Ridge Route when it opened. The Piru Gorge alignment straddled even less ridges than Interstate 5 does today. Most CHPW materials refer anything north of Tejon Pass to San Joaquin Valley via Grapevine Canyon as the "Grapevine Grade." That likely is the origin of the term "The Grapevine" came to be and somehow ended up being bastardized into referring to I-5 north of Castaic.
Back when I was very young, my dad referred to pretty much all of US 99 from Castaic north over the top and down into the valley as the "grapevine" -- not so much as a reference to the town/canyon at the north end but because of its curving configuration -- not much in the way of any lengthy straight sections until (NB) a few miles south of Gorman -- which was also my impression as a kid. But what impressed me later on was the way that I-5 was pushed through the mountains -- both carriageway-separated sections -- the one north of Castaic and the northernmost section bracketing Grapevine itself -- utilized the original 4-lane alignment as one of the directions (NB on the grade out of Castaic and SB out of the Valley) with new-terrain construction constituting the opposite direction, with optimal configuration for downhill high-speed travel, including truck provisions. Of course the Piru Gorge section was an exception, since much of it was slated to be inundated when the dam/reservoir was constructed (as part of the California Aqueduct project). Even so, my dad still referred to the mountain crossing -- even at 8 lanes -- as the "grapevine". I guess old habits just tend to stick around!
This history was very interesting. As a recent immigrant to So Cal, I had no idea there was a historical Grapevine Canyon. I had thought the name's origin was similar to Spaghetti Junction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghetti_junction) (in a number of places) or the DC Beltline's Mixing Bowl (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_Interchange). I had also thought that the Grapevine was everything on I-5 north of the Antelope Valley Freeway exit. Thanks for the background.
What will get you is how much the name "Tejon Pass" has shifted around. The original Tejon Pass was located to the east and was the original path of the Stockton-Los Angeles Road (a precursor to the Old Ridge Route). When Fort Tejon was built n 1854 the main path of the Stockton-Los Angeles Road was rerouted pass through Grapevine Canyon towards the so called "Fort Tejon Pass." Fort Tejon Pass has been since renamed to Tejon Pass and the original pass to carry the name is now Old Tejon Pass.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 05, 2021, 04:04:23 PM
What will get you is how much the name "Tejon Pass" has shifted around. The original Tejon Pass was located to the east and was the original path of the Stockton-Los Angeles Road (a precursor to the Old Ridge Route). When Fort Tejon was built n 1854 the main path of the Stockton-Los Angeles Road was rerouted pass through Grapevine Canyon towards the so called "Fort Tejon Pass." Fort Tejon Pass has been since renamed to Tejon Pass and the original pass to carry the name is now Old Tejon Pass.
I've noticed that in various old maps on Rumsey. It's about 1000 feet higher than the new pass, but I guess they were more interested in grade than in absolute elevation.
Quote from: pderocco on August 05, 2021, 11:56:58 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 05, 2021, 04:04:23 PM
What will get you is how much the name "Tejon Pass" has shifted around. The original Tejon Pass was located to the east and was the original path of the Stockton-Los Angeles Road (a precursor to the Old Ridge Route). When Fort Tejon was built n 1854 the main path of the Stockton-Los Angeles Road was rerouted pass through Grapevine Canyon towards the so called "Fort Tejon Pass." Fort Tejon Pass has been since renamed to Tejon Pass and the original pass to carry the name is now Old Tejon Pass.
I've noticed that in various old maps on Rumsey. It's about 1000 feet higher than the new pass, but I guess they were more interested in grade than in absolute elevation.
Old Tejon Pass was a much straighter shot to San Francisquito Canyon and San Fernando Valley than modern Tejon Pass. Fort Tejon was laid to keep the local Emigdiano population settlements in southern San Joaquin Valley in check (probably as ugly of a history as it sounds given I believe this was also forced resettlement). The location of Fort Tejon in Grapevine Canyon was strategically important and drew a lot of travelers who wanted projection on the Stockton-Los Angeles Road. The U.S. Army Calvary was charge of development of protection of travelers on wagon roads in much of Southern California at the time. That being the case the Stockton-Los Angeles Road shares a common history with the development of the Mojave Road.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 01, 2021, 12:31:08 AM
That detour of CA 4 through the San Joaquin River Delta onto Byron Highway is going to make a brutal commuting drive all the more brutal. Both highways are far beyond obsolete at this point and need substantial expansion to contend with traffic loads.
Amusingly a lot of us were talking about I-15 and the new agriculture station backups on Facebook. The old station at minimum could be bypassed by way of Old US 91/466 on Yermo Road. I'm to understand a lot of people now take US 95 and I-40 to avoid the traffic backups on weekends on I-15 at the new agriculture station in Primm. I've personally found taking NV 160, State Line Road, CA 127, CA 190, Trona-Wildrose Road and CA 178 to be an easier route back over I-15/CA 58 back to San Joaquin Valley.
I'm finding myself disappointed that AZ 30 isn't numbered AZ 404 to keep some continuity with the Loop Freeways. Granted AZ 143 and AZ 24 are numbers plucked out of thin air also. Kind of a shame considering that Arizona used to have really orderly State Highway Numbering conventions.
I'm not surprised that CHP wasn't going to allow a detour of the Bixby Bridge down Old Coast Road. The locals absolutely hate when people pass through Old Coast Road and park along the ledges above Bixby Creek. I've driven it a couple times myself, at times it can be in good repair but the grade an erode heavily in the winter.
Be realistic dude, that'll never happen.
Quote from: kernals12 on August 08, 2021, 12:33:20 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 01, 2021, 12:31:08 AM
That detour of CA 4 through the San Joaquin River Delta onto Byron Highway is going to make a brutal commuting drive all the more brutal. Both highways are far beyond obsolete at this point and need substantial expansion to contend with traffic loads.
Amusingly a lot of us were talking about I-15 and the new agriculture station backups on Facebook. The old station at minimum could be bypassed by way of Old US 91/466 on Yermo Road. I'm to understand a lot of people now take US 95 and I-40 to avoid the traffic backups on weekends on I-15 at the new agriculture station in Primm. I've personally found taking NV 160, State Line Road, CA 127, CA 190, Trona-Wildrose Road and CA 178 to be an easier route back over I-15/CA 58 back to San Joaquin Valley.
I'm finding myself disappointed that AZ 30 isn't numbered AZ 404 to keep some continuity with the Loop Freeways. Granted AZ 143 and AZ 24 are numbers plucked out of thin air also. Kind of a shame considering that Arizona used to have really orderly State Highway Numbering conventions.
I'm not surprised that CHP wasn't going to allow a detour of the Bixby Bridge down Old Coast Road. The locals absolutely hate when people pass through Old Coast Road and park along the ledges above Bixby Creek. I've driven it a couple times myself, at times it can be in good repair but the grade an erode heavily in the winter.
Be realistic dude, that'll never happen.
With CA 4 that is likely a correct assessment. Bryon Highway on the other hand is being expanded to four lanes piecemeal. The biggest issue there is that Bryon Highway spans multiple counties which so far don't appear be working cooperatively.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 01, 2021, 12:31:08 AM
Amusingly a lot of us were talking about I-15 and the new agriculture station backups on Facebook. The old station at minimum could be bypassed by way of Old US 91/466 on Yermo Road. I'm to understand a lot of people now take US 95 and I-40 to avoid the traffic backups on weekends on I-15 at the new agriculture station in Primm. I've personally found taking NV 160, State Line Road, CA 127, CA 190, Trona-Wildrose Road and CA 178 to be an easier route back over I-15/CA 58 back to San Joaquin Valley.
That works for you. I just wish it were south of Nipton Road which is the exit for people crossing the Mojave to the Joshua Tree and the Coachella Valley. I guess now I'll try US 95 and the old US 66 through Goffs to Amboy.
Quote from: skluth on August 08, 2021, 01:17:49 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 01, 2021, 12:31:08 AM
Amusingly a lot of us were talking about I-15 and the new agriculture station backups on Facebook. The old station at minimum could be bypassed by way of Old US 91/466 on Yermo Road. I'm to understand a lot of people now take US 95 and I-40 to avoid the traffic backups on weekends on I-15 at the new agriculture station in Primm. I've personally found taking NV 160, State Line Road, CA 127, CA 190, Trona-Wildrose Road and CA 178 to be an easier route back over I-15/CA 58 back to San Joaquin Valley.
That works for you. I just wish it were south of Nipton Road which is the exit for people crossing the Mojave to the Joshua Tree and the Coachella Valley. I guess now I'll try US 95 and the old US 66 through Goffs to Amboy.
Amboy Road isn't all that bad of a cutoff road. I used to use it extensively when I worked in Palm Springs and needed to get to Laughlin/Bullhead City somewhat quickly. I also used to take Kelbaker Road from Palm Springs to Vegas but that doesn't help now with the new Ag Inspection Station.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 08, 2021, 01:26:03 PM
Quote from: skluth on August 08, 2021, 01:17:49 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 01, 2021, 12:31:08 AM
Amusingly a lot of us were talking about I-15 and the new agriculture station backups on Facebook. The old station at minimum could be bypassed by way of Old US 91/466 on Yermo Road. I'm to understand a lot of people now take US 95 and I-40 to avoid the traffic backups on weekends on I-15 at the new agriculture station in Primm. I've personally found taking NV 160, State Line Road, CA 127, CA 190, Trona-Wildrose Road and CA 178 to be an easier route back over I-15/CA 58 back to San Joaquin Valley.
That works for you. I just wish it were south of Nipton Road which is the exit for people crossing the Mojave to the Joshua Tree and the Coachella Valley. I guess now I'll try US 95 and the old US 66 through Goffs to Amboy.
Amboy Road isn't all that bad of a cutoff road. I used to use it extensively when I worked in Palm Springs and needed to get to Laughlin/Bullhead City somewhat quickly. I also used to take Kelbaker Road from Palm Springs to Vegas but that doesn't help now with the new Ag Inspection Station.
I love Amboy Road although it means driving past some survivalist-type homes near the curve east of Twentynine Palms. Kelso Road is pretty good too, but you're right to take Kelbaker Road. The roads connecting Kelso and Nipton are drivable in my Camry, but a 4WD is probably best for it. The couple times I've been on the latter roads I've never gotten above 55. One goal this winter is to climb around Amboy Crater. Hopefully I'll be over the Guillen-Barre I've been dealing with the last few months.
QuoteHopefully I'll be over the Guillen-Barre I've been dealing with the last few months.
Ugh! Best wishes for a speedy recovery!
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 08, 2021, 12:49:08 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 08, 2021, 12:33:20 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 01, 2021, 12:31:08 AM
That detour of CA 4 through the San Joaquin River Delta onto Byron Highway is going to make a brutal commuting drive all the more brutal. Both highways are far beyond obsolete at this point and need substantial expansion to contend with traffic loads.
Amusingly a lot of us were talking about I-15 and the new agriculture station backups on Facebook. The old station at minimum could be bypassed by way of Old US 91/466 on Yermo Road. I'm to understand a lot of people now take US 95 and I-40 to avoid the traffic backups on weekends on I-15 at the new agriculture station in Primm. I've personally found taking NV 160, State Line Road, CA 127, CA 190, Trona-Wildrose Road and CA 178 to be an easier route back over I-15/CA 58 back to San Joaquin Valley.
I'm finding myself disappointed that AZ 30 isn't numbered AZ 404 to keep some continuity with the Loop Freeways. Granted AZ 143 and AZ 24 are numbers plucked out of thin air also. Kind of a shame considering that Arizona used to have really orderly State Highway Numbering conventions.
I'm not surprised that CHP wasn't going to allow a detour of the Bixby Bridge down Old Coast Road. The locals absolutely hate when people pass through Old Coast Road and park along the ledges above Bixby Creek. I've driven it a couple times myself, at times it can be in good repair but the grade an erode heavily in the winter.
Be realistic dude, that'll never happen.
With CA 4 that is likely a correct assessment. Bryon Highway on the other hand is being expanded to four lanes piecemeal. The biggest issue there is that Bryon Highway spans multiple counties which so far don't appear be working cooperatively.
Given the lack of progress on even finalizing a route for the CA 239 connector between the east end of the CA 4 freeway and I-205/580, expanding capacity on Byron Highway has likely been deemed necessary (and probably precipitated by much pissing and moaning from developers in west Tracy and Mountain House). But it's not surprising that Contra Costa County is dragging their feet; they're still hoping to expedite "infill" in the Oakley/Brentwood area before providing better egress to the SJ County developments (just look at the weekend real estate listings in the San Jose "Murky News").
I am not trying to jump "off-topic" here, but would it be good idea if state and local officials worked with the federal government to adopt a Route 239 from the junction of I-205 and I-580 up to the end of the freeway portion of SR-4. Once the freeway route was adopted, the rest of the SR-4 freeway already built to I-80 in Hercules could possibly become as a new interstate. It would be a de-facto northeast bypass of the Bay Area. I think I-480 is available for numbering use along the entire route. That would be great !!
I still would like to see SR-4 upgraded to four lane expressway standards between Discovery Bay and Stockton, connected directly to the current end of the Crosstown Freeway in Stockton. I don't think it will happen in my lifetime, but it would be very practical and is certainly needed. Yeah, I know the area is environmentally sensitive, but there are mitigations available.
Quote from: Concrete Bob on August 09, 2021, 05:25:33 AM
I am not trying to jump "off-topic" here, but would it be good idea if state and local officials worked with the federal government to adopt a Route 239 from the junction of I-205 and I-580 up to the end of the freeway portion of SR-4. Once the freeway route was adopted, the rest of the already built route to I-80 could become as a new interstate? It would be a de-facto northeast bypass of the Bay Area. I think I-480 is free for numbering use along the entire route.
California's disinterest in even authorizing/signing the three state-to-interstate upgrades they have already planned (210 east of 57, 15 south of 8, 905 as a whole) over the last 2 decades kinda answers this.
Wasn't the last new interstate route signed in California...I-105 about 29 years ago? (A designation that had existed on that corridor since 1968!) Prior to that were the upgrades furthered by 105's namesake Glenn Anderson himself (880 on Nimitz, 580 in Richmond, 238, 710) and the re-designation of 11 as 110, all of which are 37 years old or older now.
Quote from: TheStranger on August 09, 2021, 05:31:50 AM
Quote from: Concrete Bob on August 09, 2021, 05:25:33 AM
I am not trying to jump "off-topic" here, but would it be good idea if state and local officials worked with the federal government to adopt a Route 239 from the junction of I-205 and I-580 up to the end of the freeway portion of SR-4. Once the freeway route was adopted, the rest of the already built route to I-80 could become as a new interstate? It would be a de-facto northeast bypass of the Bay Area. I think I-480 is free for numbering use along the entire route.
California's disinterest in even authorizing/signing the three state-to-interstate upgrades they have already planned (210 east of 57, 15 south of 8, 905 as a whole) over the last 2 decades kinda answers this.
Wasn't the last new interstate route signed in California...I-105 about 29 years ago? (A designation that had existed on that corridor since 1968!) Prior to that were the upgrades furthered by 105's namesake Glenn Anderson himself (880 on Nimitz, 580 in Richmond, 238, 710) and the re-designation of 11 as 110, all of which are 37 years old or older now.
The basic reason for the signage on 110, 238, 710, and 880 was to take advantage of the now-defunct federal program that provided funds for maintenance/upgrades of Interstate highways regardless of whether they were originally chargeable or not (those four were clearly
not). 238/880 were the last to be designated (1984, signed 1986) under that old program, whereas I-105 was the last uncompleted Interstate (finished 1993), but was also the last straggler of the 1968 batch of chargeable additions, the inclusion of which was by courtesy of Rep. Anderson (as one of two routes allotted to CA that year, the other being the I-15 extension to San Diego). But since the maintenance program ceased in 1995, Caltrans has had little appetite for Interstate extensions -- although the CA 210 extension -- at least the portions opened between 2002 and 2007 between San Dimas and San Bernardino -- were definitely constructed to Interstate standards. But 14 years after that last piece was opened, the substandard former CA 30 section between San Bernardino and Redlands is finally being addressed; Caltrans was in no particular hurry to pour funds into a project that would simply allow the Interstate re-shielding of a freeway that has been fully signed as "210" since 2008. The same applies to I-905 south of San Diego; it was not only incomplete in regards to its role as a connector from I-5 to the new Otay Mesa commercial POE (all commercial vehicles shunted to the newer facility to the east, freeing up the perennially congested I-5 border crossing for private vehicles only) but was substandard for about a mile and a half east of I-805. Again, once partially open it was essentially doing its job, so actual Interstate signage wasn't deemed a priority; the delay in completing the Toll 125 interchange because of the toll agency's default didn't help much either! It'll be interesting to see if Caltrans actually engages in re-signage of both 210 and 905 when the facilities are completely brought up to standard. My guess -- it'll be done, but at a leisurely pace; they'll want to spread those re-signage costs over a FY or two.
Quote from: sparker on August 02, 2021, 03:20:21 AM
Quote from: pderocco on August 02, 2021, 02:15:37 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 01, 2021, 05:26:15 PM
When I was a kid living in Glendale, and we were visiting my mom's niece in Las Vegas (early/mid-'60's), my dad always went out via what was then Newhall and out 138 through Pearblossom and then heading straight toward Victorville on what would be signed as CA 18 by 1968. Even though I-10 to (then) I-15 at Colton then north had no stop signs or signals, being all freeway or expressway, he preferred the cross-desert trip just because it was less crowded. Never saw much; both coming and going happened at night through that area -- but it stuck with me, and for years afterward if my trip began anywhere near or west of central L.A., I'd head out 14, Pearblossom, and 138.
My preference has always been for Pearblossom to Ave T, up to Palmdale Blvd, then up to El Mirage Rd, then down to Air Expwy, pretty close to the HDC alignment. I've probably driven that 100 times in reverse, on my way home from the desert to L.A., and it's always blissfully empty.
Yeah -- if there's road work on 18 and/or 138, El Mirage is a decent alternative, even if the pavement's a bit sketchy, particularly in SB County. A few odd "jogs" along the way, but if you have GPS or even a decent Auto Club regional map, it's not difficult to navigate.
Has the section of Pearblossom between Sierra Hwy and the Fort Tejon/Ave T/ Pearblossom intersection ever been a signed route?
The El Mirage route mentioned above is a real find.
Quote from: mrsman on August 13, 2021, 11:12:48 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 02, 2021, 03:20:21 AM
Quote from: pderocco on August 02, 2021, 02:15:37 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 01, 2021, 05:26:15 PM
When I was a kid living in Glendale, and we were visiting my mom's niece in Las Vegas (early/mid-'60's), my dad always went out via what was then Newhall and out 138 through Pearblossom and then heading straight toward Victorville on what would be signed as CA 18 by 1968. Even though I-10 to (then) I-15 at Colton then north had no stop signs or signals, being all freeway or expressway, he preferred the cross-desert trip just because it was less crowded. Never saw much; both coming and going happened at night through that area -- but it stuck with me, and for years afterward if my trip began anywhere near or west of central L.A., I'd head out 14, Pearblossom, and 138.
My preference has always been for Pearblossom to Ave T, up to Palmdale Blvd, then up to El Mirage Rd, then down to Air Expwy, pretty close to the HDC alignment. I've probably driven that 100 times in reverse, on my way home from the desert to L.A., and it's always blissfully empty.
Yeah -- if there's road work on 18 and/or 138, El Mirage is a decent alternative, even if the pavement's a bit sketchy, particularly in SB County. A few odd "jogs" along the way, but if you have GPS or even a decent Auto Club regional map, it's not difficult to navigate.
Has the section of Pearblossom between Sierra Hwy and the Fort Tejon/Ave T/ Pearblossom intersection ever been a signed route?
The El Mirage route mentioned above is a real find.
The section of Pearblossom from CA 14 at Vincent to CA 138 has never been field signed as anything -- state or county -- during its existence. The fact that it gets used --
a lot! -- indicates that any kind of signage wouldn't likely enhance its status. Thomas Brothers applied a CA 122 shield to it on several editions of their L.A. regional guides, but that reflected ignorance (willful? cognitive dissonance?) of the reality in the field. That being said, I'm surprised that "TO CA 138 EAST" signage of some sort hasn't shown up on NB CA 14 at the Pearblossom exit; likewise any form of "TO CA 14 SOUTH" sign assembly at the Pearblossom/CA 138 intersection is notable by its absence. Yet it continues to host thousands of vehicles daily; looks like decent available maps, GPS, and word-or-mouth have been effective in this regard.
Quote from: sparker on August 13, 2021, 05:00:03 PM
Quote from: mrsman on August 13, 2021, 11:12:48 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 02, 2021, 03:20:21 AM
Quote from: pderocco on August 02, 2021, 02:15:37 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 01, 2021, 05:26:15 PM
When I was a kid living in Glendale, and we were visiting my mom's niece in Las Vegas (early/mid-'60's), my dad always went out via what was then Newhall and out 138 through Pearblossom and then heading straight toward Victorville on what would be signed as CA 18 by 1968. Even though I-10 to (then) I-15 at Colton then north had no stop signs or signals, being all freeway or expressway, he preferred the cross-desert trip just because it was less crowded. Never saw much; both coming and going happened at night through that area -- but it stuck with me, and for years afterward if my trip began anywhere near or west of central L.A., I'd head out 14, Pearblossom, and 138.
My preference has always been for Pearblossom to Ave T, up to Palmdale Blvd, then up to El Mirage Rd, then down to Air Expwy, pretty close to the HDC alignment. I've probably driven that 100 times in reverse, on my way home from the desert to L.A., and it's always blissfully empty.
Yeah -- if there's road work on 18 and/or 138, El Mirage is a decent alternative, even if the pavement's a bit sketchy, particularly in SB County. A few odd "jogs" along the way, but if you have GPS or even a decent Auto Club regional map, it's not difficult to navigate.
Has the section of Pearblossom between Sierra Hwy and the Fort Tejon/Ave T/ Pearblossom intersection ever been a signed route?
The El Mirage route mentioned above is a real find.
The section of Pearblossom from CA 14 at Vincent to CA 138 has never been field signed as anything -- state or county -- during its existence. The fact that it gets used -- a lot! -- indicates that any kind of signage wouldn't likely enhance its status. Thomas Brothers applied a CA 122 shield to it on several editions of their L.A. regional guides, but that reflected ignorance (willful? cognitive dissonance?) of the reality in the field. That being said, I'm surprised that "TO CA 138 EAST" signage of some sort hasn't shown up on NB CA 14 at the Pearblossom exit; likewise any form of "TO CA 14 SOUTH" sign assembly at the Pearblossom/CA 138 intersection is notable by its absence. Yet it continues to host thousands of vehicles daily; looks like decent available maps, GPS, and word-or-mouth have been effective in this regard.
The prominence of the above route is certainly shown on Google Maps. It is one of the few routes that is not a state highway or a county expressway that is in yellow. Another head scratcher for a route in yellow is L.A.'s Western Ave. Yes, the part south of I-405 is part of CA-213, but Google put the whole route in yellow all the way up to Santa Monica Blvd. Weird.
Quote from: mrsman on August 13, 2021, 07:01:45 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 13, 2021, 05:00:03 PM
Quote from: mrsman on August 13, 2021, 11:12:48 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 02, 2021, 03:20:21 AM
Quote from: pderocco on August 02, 2021, 02:15:37 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 01, 2021, 05:26:15 PM
When I was a kid living in Glendale, and we were visiting my mom's niece in Las Vegas (early/mid-'60's), my dad always went out via what was then Newhall and out 138 through Pearblossom and then heading straight toward Victorville on what would be signed as CA 18 by 1968. Even though I-10 to (then) I-15 at Colton then north had no stop signs or signals, being all freeway or expressway, he preferred the cross-desert trip just because it was less crowded. Never saw much; both coming and going happened at night through that area -- but it stuck with me, and for years afterward if my trip began anywhere near or west of central L.A., I'd head out 14, Pearblossom, and 138.
My preference has always been for Pearblossom to Ave T, up to Palmdale Blvd, then up to El Mirage Rd, then down to Air Expwy, pretty close to the HDC alignment. I've probably driven that 100 times in reverse, on my way home from the desert to L.A., and it's always blissfully empty.
Yeah -- if there's road work on 18 and/or 138, El Mirage is a decent alternative, even if the pavement's a bit sketchy, particularly in SB County. A few odd "jogs" along the way, but if you have GPS or even a decent Auto Club regional map, it's not difficult to navigate.
Has the section of Pearblossom between Sierra Hwy and the Fort Tejon/Ave T/ Pearblossom intersection ever been a signed route?
The El Mirage route mentioned above is a real find.
The section of Pearblossom from CA 14 at Vincent to CA 138 has never been field signed as anything -- state or county -- during its existence. The fact that it gets used -- a lot! -- indicates that any kind of signage wouldn't likely enhance its status. Thomas Brothers applied a CA 122 shield to it on several editions of their L.A. regional guides, but that reflected ignorance (willful? cognitive dissonance?) of the reality in the field. That being said, I'm surprised that "TO CA 138 EAST" signage of some sort hasn't shown up on NB CA 14 at the Pearblossom exit; likewise any form of "TO CA 14 SOUTH" sign assembly at the Pearblossom/CA 138 intersection is notable by its absence. Yet it continues to host thousands of vehicles daily; looks like decent available maps, GPS, and word-or-mouth have been effective in this regard.
The prominence of the above route is certainly shown on Google Maps. It is one of the few routes that is not a state highway or a county expressway that is in yellow. Another head scratcher for a route in yellow is L.A.'s Western Ave. Yes, the part south of I-405 is part of CA-213, but Google put the whole route in yellow all the way up to Santa Monica Blvd. Weird.
Hey, Western Ave. gets a shitload of traffic -- but then, so does Vermont, Crenshaw, and any number of N-S arterials in that neck of the woods! Why Google is singling out Western is indeed odd (even though some 1960'/'70's Thomas Brothers signed it as CA 258 in their map books!). But even Gousha did this as well some 50+ years ago (minus the 258 reference), continuing the "red" arterial up to Los Feliz, then east over to Glendale Ave. in Glendale, and up that street to (pre-freeway) CA 2 on Verdugo Ave. In reality, that was a damn good regional continuum (although the traffic levels would -- and did -- piss off a lot of high-value property owners in the Los Feliz area!), even though trucks were restricted (3 tons or less in the '60's) on Los Feliz west of Vermont and on Western north of Franklin. This is the area where I grew up, and a lot of the street arrangements stick in my memory!
Quote from: mrsman on August 13, 2021, 07:01:45 PM
The prominence of the above route [Pearblossom] is certainly shown on Google Maps. It is one of the few routes that is not a state highway or a county expressway that is in yellow. Another head scratcher for a route in yellow is L.A.'s Western Ave. Yes, the part south of I-405 is part of CA-213, but Google put the whole route in yellow all the way up to Santa Monica Blvd. Weird.
Earlier this year, Google Maps (or perhaps it was Google Earth) was showing Pearblossom as route 122 for a while. Of course, that was one of the planned routes for that area that mostly never got built. The irony is that it's apparently on the books (cf. cahighways.org), and that piece of it was supposed to be on Pearblossom, so that suggests that Pearblossom really is 122, even if it's not signed.
Quote from: pderocco on August 18, 2021, 01:04:30 AM
Quote from: mrsman on August 13, 2021, 07:01:45 PM
The prominence of the above route [Pearblossom] is certainly shown on Google Maps. It is one of the few routes that is not a state highway or a county expressway that is in yellow. Another head scratcher for a route in yellow is L.A.'s Western Ave. Yes, the part south of I-405 is part of CA-213, but Google put the whole route in yellow all the way up to Santa Monica Blvd. Weird.
Earlier this year, Google Maps (or perhaps it was Google Earth) was showing Pearblossom as route 122 for a while. Of course, that was one of the planned routes for that area that mostly never got built. The irony is that it's apparently on the books (cf. cahighways.org), and that piece of it was supposed to be on Pearblossom, so that suggests that Pearblossom really is 122, even if it's not signed.
CA 122 was and is an unadopted route for its entire length between CA 14 at Vincent and CA 58 near Hinkley. Actually, if fully constructed, would function, with the southern section of CA 14, as a "beeline" between Barstow and the San Fernando Valley (even with a 1994 "jog" near Edwards AFB). But while the section of Pearblossom Highway between CA 14 and CA 138 does lie, more or less, along the basic 122 pathway, the actual roadway itself has never been adopted into the state highway system. Ironically, if a freeway is deployed along CA 138, that section of Pearblossom Highway is the most logical path over to CA 14, since development has functionally filled the area north of there -- so eventually it may well be a state highway -- but part of 138, not 122.
Quote from: sparker on August 18, 2021, 04:56:27 AM
Quote from: pderocco on August 18, 2021, 01:04:30 AM
Quote from: mrsman on August 13, 2021, 07:01:45 PM
The prominence of the above route [Pearblossom] is certainly shown on Google Maps. It is one of the few routes that is not a state highway or a county expressway that is in yellow. Another head scratcher for a route in yellow is L.A.'s Western Ave. Yes, the part south of I-405 is part of CA-213, but Google put the whole route in yellow all the way up to Santa Monica Blvd. Weird.
Earlier this year, Google Maps (or perhaps it was Google Earth) was showing Pearblossom as route 122 for a while. Of course, that was one of the planned routes for that area that mostly never got built. The irony is that it's apparently on the books (cf. cahighways.org), and that piece of it was supposed to be on Pearblossom, so that suggests that Pearblossom really is 122, even if it's not signed.
CA 122 was and is an unadopted route for its entire length between CA 14 at Vincent and CA 58 near Hinkley. Actually, if fully constructed, would function, with the southern section of CA 14, as a "beeline" between Barstow and the San Fernando Valley (even with a 1994 "jog" near Edwards AFB). But while the section of Pearblossom Highway between CA 14 and CA 138 does lie, more or less, along the basic 122 pathway, the actual roadway itself has never been adopted into the state highway system. Ironically, if a freeway is deployed along CA 138, that section of Pearblossom Highway is the most logical path over to CA 14, since development has functionally filled the area north of there -- so eventually it may well be a state highway -- but part of 138, not 122.
Google also displays unbuilt CA 179 north of Fairfield on Pleasant Valley Road. I'd submit a correction ticket but I enjoy the obscure reference too much.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 18, 2021, 08:00:54 AM
Google also displays unbuilt CA 179 north of Fairfield on Pleasant Valley Road. I'd submit a correction ticket but I enjoy the obscure reference too much.
Similarly, I've seen them put CA 181 on River Road between US 101 and Guerneville from time to time. But despite the technical error, it's sort of intuitive that they affix a CA 122 shield/reference to the west end of Pearblossom Highway, given its regional prominence as a heavily-trafficked connector. Not so much with the CA 179 error; that's more amusing than anything else.
Quote from: sparker on August 18, 2021, 05:15:45 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 18, 2021, 08:00:54 AM
Google also displays unbuilt CA 179 north of Fairfield on Pleasant Valley Road. I'd submit a correction ticket but I enjoy the obscure reference too much.
Similarly, I've seen them put CA 181 on River Road between US 101 and Guerneville from time to time. But despite the technical error, it's sort of intuitive that they affix a CA 122 shield/reference to the west end of Pearblossom Highway, given its regional prominence as a heavily-trafficked connector. Not so much with the CA 179 error; that's more amusing than anything else.
Amusingly I've found myself using Pleasant Valley Road quite often upon departing Berryessa. I can definitely see what the CHC and DOH were going for given how popular of a tourism corridor it is.
Why is there practically zero signage of the realigned CA-1 between Pleasant Valley Road and the 101 (i.e. Rice Avenue)? I guess it just takes a while. But signage through that whole area is really confusing. There are basically zero references to CA-1 at all.
And with that in mind, I recall reading CA-232 was supposed to be realigned onto Santa Clara Avenue, making a shorter connection between CA-1/US-101 and CA-118. Is that still planned?
Quote from: Quillz on September 10, 2021, 09:56:01 AM
Why is there practically zero signage of the realigned CA-1 between Pleasant Valley Road and the 101 (i.e. Rice Avenue)? I guess it just takes a while. But signage through that whole area is really confusing. There are basically zero references to CA-1 at all.
There's a whole 9.5 year old thread ongoing thread about this!
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6208.0
In short: Even though the route has been proposed as Route 1 since the 1970s, and even though the Rice/101 interchange has been rebuilt and the PCH freeway has been realigned at Pleasant Valley Road to connect to Rice instead of Oxnard Boulevard (old 1 and originally old Alternate 101)...the 1 signage still has not arrived. I know one commenter mentioned that the current holdup involves a railroad crossing near Route 34.
Quote from: TheStranger on September 10, 2021, 11:46:12 AM
Quote from: Quillz on September 10, 2021, 09:56:01 AM
Why is there practically zero signage of the realigned CA-1 between Pleasant Valley Road and the 101 (i.e. Rice Avenue)? I guess it just takes a while. But signage through that whole area is really confusing. There are basically zero references to CA-1 at all.
There's a whole 9.5 year old thread ongoing thread about this!
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6208.0
In short: Even though the route has been proposed as Route 1 since the 1970s, and even though the Rice/101 interchange has been rebuilt and the PCH freeway has been realigned at Pleasant Valley Road to connect to Rice instead of Oxnard Boulevard (old 1 and originally old Alternate 101)...the 1 signage still has not arrived. I know one commenter mentioned that the current holdup involves a railroad crossing near Route 34.
The directional banner regarding CA-34 has changed. Before, it used to be "<-->" at the Rice/5th junction, but recently it was changed to just "->" which indicates that CA-1 has now been officially moved (and CA-34 truncated). And yet still no signage. Combined with the already poor state of signage when realignment/relinquishment is involved, anyone who wants to clinch CA-1 would likely have trouble navigating it.
Quote from: Quillz on September 10, 2021, 05:31:33 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on September 10, 2021, 11:46:12 AM
Quote from: Quillz on September 10, 2021, 09:56:01 AM
Why is there practically zero signage of the realigned CA-1 between Pleasant Valley Road and the 101 (i.e. Rice Avenue)? I guess it just takes a while. But signage through that whole area is really confusing. There are basically zero references to CA-1 at all.
There's a whole 9.5 year old thread ongoing thread about this!
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6208.0
In short: Even though the route has been proposed as Route 1 since the 1970s, and even though the Rice/101 interchange has been rebuilt and the PCH freeway has been realigned at Pleasant Valley Road to connect to Rice instead of Oxnard Boulevard (old 1 and originally old Alternate 101)...the 1 signage still has not arrived. I know one commenter mentioned that the current holdup involves a railroad crossing near Route 34.
The directional banner regarding CA-34 has changed. Before, it used to be "<-->" at the Rice/5th junction, but recently it was changed to just "->" which indicates that CA-1 has now been officially moved (and CA-34 truncated). And yet still no signage. Combined with the already poor state of signage when realignment/relinquishment is involved, anyone who wants to clinch CA-1 would likely have trouble navigating it.
Interestingly, on westbound 5th, there is an "END 34" sign just *past* Rice. This seems to imply that the truncation is allowing room for ramp(s) associated with a Rice Ave overcrossing of the railroad tracks and 5th.
Quote from: GaryA on September 12, 2021, 11:41:13 PM
Quote from: Quillz on September 10, 2021, 05:31:33 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on September 10, 2021, 11:46:12 AM
Quote from: Quillz on September 10, 2021, 09:56:01 AM
Why is there practically zero signage of the realigned CA-1 between Pleasant Valley Road and the 101 (i.e. Rice Avenue)? I guess it just takes a while. But signage through that whole area is really confusing. There are basically zero references to CA-1 at all.
There's a whole 9.5 year old thread ongoing thread about this!
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6208.0
In short: Even though the route has been proposed as Route 1 since the 1970s, and even though the Rice/101 interchange has been rebuilt and the PCH freeway has been realigned at Pleasant Valley Road to connect to Rice instead of Oxnard Boulevard (old 1 and originally old Alternate 101)...the 1 signage still has not arrived. I know one commenter mentioned that the current holdup involves a railroad crossing near Route 34.
The directional banner regarding CA-34 has changed. Before, it used to be "<-->" at the Rice/5th junction, but recently it was changed to just "->" which indicates that CA-1 has now been officially moved (and CA-34 truncated). And yet still no signage. Combined with the already poor state of signage when realignment/relinquishment is involved, anyone who wants to clinch CA-1 would likely have trouble navigating it.
Interestingly, on westbound 5th, there is an "END 34" sign just *past* Rice. This seems to imply that the truncation is allowing room for ramp(s) associated with a Rice Ave overcrossing of the railroad tracks and 5th.
Possible. That intersection is already quite the bottleneck, it's not uncommon to get stuck there for several minutes.
There was also talk of turning CA-34 into a purely north-south route, which would follow Las Posas Road and then move onto Lewis Road where it is today. The CA-1 junction would still be in Oxnard, but farther south. This might have been abandoned, but I saw it on some 2003 planning map.
Quote from: Quillz on September 13, 2021, 12:23:06 AM
There was also talk of turning CA-34 into a purely north-south route, which would follow Las Posas Road and then move onto Lewis Road where it is today. The CA-1 junction would still be in Oxnard, but farther south. This might have been abandoned, but I saw it on some 2003 planning map.
That would make sense if they wanted state funds to improve Lewis Road as the access to CSU Channel Islands.
And to provide a direct route between PCH, Point Mugu, and Camarillo.