CA-110 Parkway

[Quillz]

Is this something new? Today, I was on I-5 southbound and US-101 northbound, and both times they intersected with CA-110, it was referred to as a "Pkwy," rather than a freeway. The US-101 junction was notable because I-110 was a freeway, while CA-110 was not.

Is this something new? And if so, does it imply Caltrans has some kind of official definition of a parkway now?

[J N Winkler]

No, it is not new.  "Parkway" appears on signs on I-5 and US 101 because Caltrans is reviving the Arroyo Seco Parkway name for Calif. 110 between the Four Level and Pasadena.  These message revisions were part of the Calif. 110 sign rehabilitation.  "Parkway" has no official standing; it is just what Los Angeles freeways used to be called until the mid-1950's.  Before it became the Hollywood Freeway, US 101 was the Hollywood Parkway; the Santa Ana Freeway used to be the Santa Ana Parkway; the Harbor Freeway was once the Harbor Parkway too.  These "parkways" were all declared freeways under the California access-control statute in the same way as other California freeways.

[mapman]

"Parkway" is also used for a freeway up here in Northern California -- CA 87 in San Jose is signed as the "Guadalupe Parkway," referencing both the adjacent Guadalupe River and the surface street Guadalupe Parkway that the norther portion of the freeway mostly replaced.

[DTComposer]

I understood the use of Parkway because of the few signs that actually spell out Arroyo Seco Parkway. But I wonder, though, that by using Parkway instead of Freeway that they're also mentally preparing drivers for a less-than-modern freeway experience (narrower lanes, tighter curves, no shoulders, short exit/entrance ramps) on CA-110?

[TheStranger]

No, it is not new.  "Parkway" appears on signs on I-5 and US 101 because Caltrans is reviving the Arroyo Seco Parkway name for Calif. 110 between the Four Level and Pasadena.  These message revisions were part of the Calif. 110 sign rehabilitation.  "Parkway" has no official standing; it is just what Los Angeles freeways used to be called until the mid-1950's.  Before it became the Hollywood Freeway, US 101 was the Hollywood Parkway; the Santa Ana Freeway used to be the Santa Ana Parkway; the Harbor Freeway was once the Harbor Parkway too.  These "parkways" were all declared freeways under the California access-control statute in the same way as other California freeways.

The lack of trucks on the Arroyo Seco Parkway (Pasadena Freeway) though does fall in line with how that term is used elsewhere (particularly in the pioneering example of New York).

But I wonder, though, that by using Parkway instead of Freeway that they're also mentally preparing drivers for a less-than-modern freeway experience (narrower lanes, tighter curves, no shoulders, short exit/entrance ramps) on CA-110?

Interestingly, when the route was given that name in 1943 (before the Pasadena Freeway name was primarily used from the 1950s until last year)...it was originally open to all traffic.  Today it does have the implication of an older, truck-unfriendly route, but I think at its construction "parkway" was the term available to describe a limited-access road - what is now I-10 was built as the "Ramona Parkway" a few years later.  I think "freeway" came about in common usage in California ca. 1947 or so...

[J N Winkler]

Interestingly, when the route was given that name in 1943 (before the Pasadena Freeway name was primarily used from the 1950s until last year)...it was originally open to all traffic.  Today it does have the implication of an older, truck-unfriendly route, but I think at its construction "parkway" was the term available to describe a limited-access road - what is now I-10 was built as the "Ramona Parkway" a few years later.  I think "freeway" came about in common usage in California ca. 1947 or so...

Actually, the term freeway has been around since 1930 and the California Division of Highways was using that word in relation to freeway designations from the very beginning.  But it was actually the City of Los Angeles that started the Arroyo Seco Parkway project (some of the early grading contracts were actually city contracts) and I think "parkway" early on became the usual term for city-planned express highways.  In the case of the Arroyo Seco specifically, it was also planned as part of a linear park.

Although the state Division of Highways had responsibility for freeway construction in Los Angeles from the late 1930's, "parkway" continued to be used for state projects until at least 1951.  The City of Los Angeles engineering vault has sewer records for the Hollywood Parkway dating from that year, for example.  This late change in usage is one reason you have to search under "parkway" and "freeway" to find construction records for the original Los Angeles freeways.

[mrsman]

Bumping this topic with another general question about CA 110.

Copying a discussion from another thread, with the hopes of getting some input from the PSW locals:

Yet again another amazing sign from LA, this one is a varible message panel! https://www.google.com/maps/@34.074901,-118.2322674,3a,15y,37.78h,101.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sA5BBY74XsetVEouVhx2Dng!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Great sign indeed.  One thing I cannot figure out is why this arrangement is only available in rush hour.  Certainly, the main connection from Downtown LA to I-5 north would justify having 2 lanes at all times.  The second lane from the left should be an option lane to either I-5 north or CA-110 north at all times. 

Then the VMS can be converted to an APL.

During "rush hour" they only want that lane as be used left turn only to I-5 North. At other times, you can still make that left, but also continue straight onto to Pasadena.  Anyone who regularly drives through there going to Pasadena know if you to stay to the right there, those lanes are much less congested.

Unless,something has changed more recently, I think it's the other way around.  There is a regular sign posted on GSV saying that from 3-7 PM left lane turns left, second lane is an option lane.  I assume that means that at other times (non-rush hour) only the left lane turns left and the second lane must continue on 110.

But you are correct that given the traffic volumes, the 110 to I-5 north should have at least 2 optional lanes at most times (and not just one during non-rush hour).  That was at the heart of my question.

So is there any good reason as to why the second lane from the left does not allow traffic to go to both I-5 and CA 110 at all times (and not just rush hour)?  Why have this VMS here?

[kendancy66]

Bumping this topic with another general question about CA 110.

Copying a discussion from another thread, with the hopes of getting some input from the PSW locals:

Yet again another amazing sign from LA, this one is a varible message panel! https://www.google.com/maps/@34.074901,-118.2322674,3a,15y,37.78h,101.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sA5BBY74XsetVEouVhx2Dng!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Great sign indeed.  One thing I cannot figure out is why this arrangement is only available in rush hour.  Certainly, the main connection from Downtown LA to I-5 north would justify having 2 lanes at all times.  The second lane from the left should be an option lane to either I-5 north or CA-110 north at all times. 

Then the VMS can be converted to an APL.

During "rush hour" they only want that lane as be used left turn only to I-5 North. At other times, you can still make that left, but also continue straight onto to Pasadena.  Anyone who regularly drives through there going to Pasadena know if you to stay to the right there, those lanes are much less congested.

Unless,something has changed more recently, I think it's the other way around.  There is a regular sign posted on GSV saying that from 3-7 PM left lane turns left, second lane is an option lane.  I assume that means that at other times (non-rush hour) only the left lane turns left and the second lane must continue on 110.

But you are correct that given the traffic volumes, the 110 to I-5 north should have at least 2 optional lanes at most times (and not just one during non-rush hour).  That was at the heart of my question.

So is there any good reason as to why the second lane from the left does not allow traffic to go to both I-5 and CA 110 at all times (and not just rush hour)?  Why have this VMS here?

Answer to first question is no

Answer to second question is until they follow your suggestion to have #2 as option lane, then they need the sign to specify left and straight ahead or straight ahead only depending on whether the time is 3-7 PM or not.