AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules to ensure post quality. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – July 2021  (Read 3301 times)

skluth

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1389
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Palm Springs, CA
  • Last Login: September 20, 2021, 07:14:24 PM
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – July 2021
« Reply #25 on: August 08, 2021, 06:43:10 PM »

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.
Logged

ClassicHasClass

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 480
  • 0-60 in 59.999997 years

  • Location: sunny So Cal
  • Last Login: September 20, 2021, 07:04:44 PM
    • Floodgap Roadgap
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – July 2021
« Reply #26 on: August 08, 2021, 08:02:08 PM »

Quote
Hopefully I'll be over the Guillen-Barre I've been dealing with the last few months.

Ugh! Best wishes for a speedy recovery!
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – July 2021
« Reply #27 on: August 09, 2021, 03:54:01 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").   
Logged

Concrete Bob

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 137
  • Roadgeek since 1966 - When Caltrans moved traffic

  • Age: 58
  • Location: Wholesome, Folsom CA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:39:46 AM
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – July 2021
« Reply #28 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 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. 
« Last Edit: August 09, 2021, 05:36:54 AM by Concrete Bob »
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4440
  • Last Login: Today at 03:21:49 AM
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – July 2021
« Reply #29 on: August 09, 2021, 05:31:50 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.

Logged
Chris Sampang

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – July 2021
« Reply #30 on: August 12, 2021, 06:28:56 PM »

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.       
Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3514
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: September 20, 2021, 06:53:28 PM
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – July 2021
« Reply #31 on: August 13, 2021, 11:12:48 AM »

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. 
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – July 2021
« Reply #32 on: August 13, 2021, 05:00:03 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. 
Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3514
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: September 20, 2021, 06:53:28 PM
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – July 2021
« Reply #33 on: August 13, 2021, 07:01:45 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.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – July 2021
« Reply #34 on: August 13, 2021, 07:38:04 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! 
Logged

pderocco

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 129
  • Age: 68
  • Location: Pacific Palisades, CA
  • Last Login: September 17, 2021, 11:44:35 PM
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – July 2021
« Reply #35 on: August 18, 2021, 01:04:30 AM »

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.
Logged
Ciao,
Paul

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – July 2021
« Reply #36 on: August 18, 2021, 04:56:27 AM »

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. 
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 16244
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:49:15 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – July 2021
« Reply #37 on: August 18, 2021, 08:00:54 AM »

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. 
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – July 2021
« Reply #38 on: August 18, 2021, 05:15:45 PM »

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.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 16244
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:49:15 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – July 2021
« Reply #39 on: August 18, 2021, 06:15:57 PM »

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.
Logged

Quillz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2561
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: September 20, 2021, 08:49:47 PM
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – July 2021
« Reply #40 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.

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?
Logged
US Highways: 1 / 2 / 6 / 12 / 14 / 16 / 18 / 20 / 26 / 30 / 50 / 64 / 66 / 84 / 85 / 87 / 91 / 93 / 95 / 97 / 99 / 101 / 189 / 191 / 201 / 285 / 287 / 385 / 395
Interstate Highways: 5 / 10 / 15 / 17 / 25 / 40 / 45 / 70 / 80 / 84 / 89 / 90 / 93 / 95

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4440
  • Last Login: Today at 03:21:49 AM
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – July 2021
« Reply #41 on: September 10, 2021, 11:46:12 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.
Logged
Chris Sampang

Quillz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2561
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: September 20, 2021, 08:49:47 PM
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – July 2021
« Reply #42 on: September 10, 2021, 05:31:33 PM »

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.
Logged
US Highways: 1 / 2 / 6 / 12 / 14 / 16 / 18 / 20 / 26 / 30 / 50 / 64 / 66 / 84 / 85 / 87 / 91 / 93 / 95 / 97 / 99 / 101 / 189 / 191 / 201 / 285 / 287 / 385 / 395
Interstate Highways: 5 / 10 / 15 / 17 / 25 / 40 / 45 / 70 / 80 / 84 / 89 / 90 / 93 / 95

GaryA

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 71
  • Location: Camarillo, CA
  • Last Login: September 20, 2021, 05:21:10 PM
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – July 2021
« Reply #43 on: September 12, 2021, 11:41:13 PM »

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.
Logged

Quillz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2561
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: September 20, 2021, 08:49:47 PM
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – July 2021
« Reply #44 on: September 13, 2021, 12:23:06 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.
Logged
US Highways: 1 / 2 / 6 / 12 / 14 / 16 / 18 / 20 / 26 / 30 / 50 / 64 / 66 / 84 / 85 / 87 / 91 / 93 / 95 / 97 / 99 / 101 / 189 / 191 / 201 / 285 / 287 / 385 / 395
Interstate Highways: 5 / 10 / 15 / 17 / 25 / 40 / 45 / 70 / 80 / 84 / 89 / 90 / 93 / 95

DTComposer

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1005
  • Location: San Jose
  • Last Login: Today at 01:39:40 AM
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – July 2021
« Reply #45 on: September 13, 2021, 12:10:50 PM »

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.
Logged

RZF

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 34
  • Location: Port Hueneme, CA - SoCal's Last Frontier
  • Last Login: September 20, 2021, 11:18:57 PM
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – July 2021
« Reply #46 on: September 13, 2021, 08:30:14 PM »

And to provide a direct route between PCH, Point Mugu, and Camarillo.
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.