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: California  (Read 284192 times)

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1325 on: August 31, 2021, 06:19:34 PM »

Quick and hopefully not to dumb of a question, but why is the evacuation from South Lake Tahoe only into Nevada and not North on CA-89 into Truckee? 

Thanks for the explanation

Emerald Bay is not something you want to evacuate people through.  CA 89 is a narrow, winding and often cliff strewn two lane highway.  US 50 on the other hand is four lanes all the way from the hazard area out of the Tahoe Basin.

There is also thought that CA 89 is under direct threat from the fire.  All of CA 89 north of the "Y" (north junction of US 50 and CA 89) is within the evacuation zone.  US 50 and NV 207 at least buy a few more hours.

As to points north of Emerald Bay, CA 89 north would be the evacuation route.  An important reason for the construction of the new bridge carrying CA 89 over the Truckee River at Tahoe City was to provide a second bridge there.  Previously the Fanny Bridge was the only crossing there and that was considered a pretty bad choke point during a fire emergency.

At this point, US 50 into Carson City is the major evacuation route; NV/CA 28, NV 431, and CA 267 are secondary or "back-up" alternatives.  If the fire turns north toward Placer County and Squaw Valley, it's likely CA 89 will close at some point, so shunting outbound traffic east and north may become necessary for the west side of the lake north of Emerald Bay.  CA 89 from Myers south over Luther Pass, currently closed, is the first logical point of potential containment; if it jumps that, the area around the airport (alongside US 50 between the SLT "Y" and Myers) is another, primarily because most trees have been cleared from around the airport for obvious reasons; since Caldor is principally a "crown" fire with spread from treetop to treetop, an existing cleared area may be able to slow down the progress toward the lake itself.  But if the worst happens and the fire shoots south around the lake, its eastern progress will be effectively halted somewhere west of US 395 (and I-580 north of Carson) because it'll simply head into the desert and run out of the type of fuel that promotes rapid fire movement. 

One of the things I was thinking about yesterday, while watching news reports of the massive traffic jam leaving South Lake Tahoe via US-50 is why they can't run the evacuation contra-flow.  I suppose it would require a lot more traffic  control at every intersection, but looking at the traffic cams of those 2 eastbound lanes stopped solid, meanwhile the 2-way turn lane and both westbound lanes were completely empty was what made me think about it.  Maybe contra-flow is something that can only work on access-controlled roads?



According to the news reports I've been watching, there are manned traffic-control points not only all along US 50 but on CA 89 south of Tahoe City and on NV 28 at the NV 431 junction.  It shouldn't be too hard for NDOT and the highway patrol to shut off WB 50 at 395 and convert those lanes to EB only.  I suppose one of the issues is where the hell to go once traffic hits US 395 & I-580; I'd imagine many of those folks will be heading up to Reno where there are plenty of overnight accommodations (but 15K of them might well use up most of that in short order!), it's likely the 2+2 I-580 will be equally jammed.  Just hope NDOT and NHP have contingency plans for this evac. 
Logged

gonealookin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 612
  • Location: Lake Tahoe - NV side
  • Last Login: August 10, 2022, 08:22:36 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1326 on: September 01, 2021, 12:39:34 AM »

One of the things I was thinking about yesterday, while watching news reports of the massive traffic jam leaving South Lake Tahoe via US-50 is why they can't run the evacuation contra-flow.  I suppose it would require a lot more traffic  control at every intersection, but looking at the traffic cams of those 2 eastbound lanes stopped solid, meanwhile the 2-way turn lane and both westbound lanes were completely empty was what made me think about it.  Maybe contra-flow is something that can only work on access-controlled roads?



According to the news reports I've been watching, there are manned traffic-control points not only all along US 50 but on CA 89 south of Tahoe City and on NV 28 at the NV 431 junction.  It shouldn't be too hard for NDOT and the highway patrol to shut off WB 50 at 395 and convert those lanes to EB only.  I suppose one of the issues is where the hell to go once traffic hits US 395 & I-580; I'd imagine many of those folks will be heading up to Reno where there are plenty of overnight accommodations (but 15K of them might well use up most of that in short order!), it's likely the 2+2 I-580 will be equally jammed.  Just hope NDOT and NHP have contingency plans for this evac. 

The evacuation orders for most of the South Shore population came all at once Monday morning.  The roads were briefly closed to all non-emergency westbound traffic, but Nevada residents who were caught down in the valley were eventually allowed back up the hill.  Emergency vehicles and law enforcement were also coming westbound.  With those factors contra-flow traffic wasn't an option; maybe just in the City of South Lake Tahoe, but at some point there would have been a mess as four lanes squeezed down to two anyway.

So most people got out of the Tahoe Basin Monday afternoon.  I'm a Nevada resident but got my evacuation order at 4 p.m. today (I had already mostly packed in anticipation of it, and was out by 6:45).  US 50 was almost completely empty as I left.  I didn't want to compete for hotel rooms in Carson City or Reno so I'm out in Fallon for the first night of it, and thinking of interesting road trips for the duration, which I assume will be 10 days or more.  My house is fairly close to the lake and I don't expect to get burned out, I think if the fire burned in that direction it would go up into the mountains above us, but who knows how it will go so I'm carrying as much stuff as I could reasonably get in a RAV4.
Logged

Occidental Tourist

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 746
  • Last Login: August 11, 2022, 11:27:06 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1327 on: September 01, 2021, 02:03:47 AM »

Need the traffic and planner experts to help me answer this: How is there always traffic all day on the 10 EB from Culver City to downtown but never any traffic WB except maybe weekend Santa Monica beach traffic?

Pre-COVID there was always morning traffic westbound on the 10 from downtown.
Logged

Lukeisroads

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 76
  • Me live in bakersfield AND HATE 99 at rush hour

  • Location: Bakersfield,CA
  • Last Login: August 11, 2022, 11:43:19 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1328 on: September 02, 2021, 12:27:40 PM »

Having just driven 395 on the two-lane section, safety considerations will require eventual modifications to separate the two directions of traffic and allow for safe passage. With packs of cars jockeying for position at speeds well in excess of the limit to complete the 395 desert segment fastest, it is a matter of time before additional safety improvements are warranted and arranged. This can be done by expanding the existing safety improvements (flaps separating two directions of traffic, improved signage, and wider shoulders) made on 395 south of 58 to include areas on 395 north of 58, followed by passing lane expansion and eventual median separation between the two directions of traffic. I've experienced this high level of traffic volume on weekdays as well as weekends between 15 and 14. Hopefully these safety improvements will come soon.

SM-G975U



Since the traffic mix is considerably different on US 395 north of CA 58 than the section to the south, it's likely D8's -- as well as the overall view emanating from Caltrans HQ -- plans would prioritize the southern segment well before any significant work would be done to the north.  395 between Victorville/I-15 and CA 58 is effectively part of a de facto commercial L.A. bypass -- as well as an effective alternate route from the multitudes of distribution warehouses in the Inland Empire -- essentially from Pomona all the way out to Redlands -- to northern CA, avoiding having to go through any part of L.A. County (even I-210's western reaches are more congested than in years past).  CA 138 is considered (a) dangerous over its 2-lane stretch through the Phelan area, and (b) more of a slog now than before, since D7's 4-laning projects included signals along the way in the Pearblossom and Littlerock areas.  Once the CA 58 Mojave bypass was completed 18 years ago, the die was cast, and 15 (including the 215 feed-in)/395/58 became the conduit of choice.  So these days it's doing double-duty diverting through traffic from I-10 as well as San Diego from the L.A. basin, as well as one of the northern outlets of choice for traffic originating in the Empire. 

With that traffic base using the facility largely 24/7, safety issues, heretofore addressed by the "band-aid" approach of periodic passing lanes and sporadic median structures, share DOT concern along with the capacity issues that become more pressing as time goes by.  The chances for anything but slightly larger-scale versions of the measures being currently deployed along US 395 giving way to an all-out divided facility, expressway or freeway, are less than robust until it is decided to actually increase the capacity of the highway.  One of the issues mitigating against the latter consideration is just where this increased traffic is to go on the south end of the corridor through Adelanto, west Victorville, and Hesperia.  It was widely thought that with expedited construction of the HDC, the segment between US 395 and I-15 north of Victorville would serve, at least initially, as the volume outlet for traffic heading north or coming south on the outlying 395 segment, simply shunting traffic laterally for about four miles to I-15. 

This "shunt" was considered vitally important, since there's been a longstanding controversy about just where to place a future 395 freeway alignment through the developed area from the current 15/395 split north through Adelanto.  Originally the idea, agreed upon by the cities of Hesperia and Victorville was to simply follow the existing arterial corridor; to that effect adjacent property was reserved, shifting from one side of the present highway to the other to allow commercial development of the area.  When Adelanto incorporated in the late '90's it did much the same by simply just keeping a "buffer zone" around 395 and placing development, including their own civic center, on adjacent or closely parallel streets.  However, the regional MPO had other ideas, preferring a parallel N-S alignment about a mile west of the present route and snaking past several large housing tracts.  The property previously reserved by the cities would be utilized for infill -- including some lower-income housing, in scarce supply even out in the high desert, where property valuation was largely less than "over the hill" in the Inland Empire.  The MPO's rationale was twofold -- enhance the infill potential as described above, and effect separation of through 395 traffic from its present highly commercialized alignment.  But the cities, whose governments were and are dominated by interests favoring existing zoning and land-use practices, demurred from the MPO plan.  The section of the HDC between 395 and I-15 would have rendered the controversy less of an obstacle by being able to deliver 395 traffic to 15 and vice-versa despite the impasse between the cities and the MPO.  When the HDC's road component was shelved, this meant that a capacity increase on 395 between Adelanto and CA 58 would have "nowhere to go", dumping traffic onto the existing 395 arterial street or the alternative along Air Base Parkway and the Old Trails Highway (historic US 66) favored by locals in the know and more or less along the HDC alignment.  Now -- whether the HDC segment east of 395, including the Apple Valley CA 18 realignment, could be considered a local SIU, and not included within the agreement that effectively sunk the road portion of the corridor, is still being debated -- the toll road concept was to have had its east end at US 395; the remainder east of there would have been constructed as a freeway, with an expressway extension commencing east of I-15. 

The bottom line is that without a viable freeway outlet to I-15, Caltrans/D8 was and is reluctant to plan & build a 4-lane divided facility along the outlying portion of US 395, safety issues notwithstanding.

look at the street view it had gas stations before the new overpass the intersection was always busy so much that people got mad and the signal was taking so long and green lights were so short PLUS there is a railroad crossing there so if it went off a car might get hit by a train due to the jam so the intersection was messed up
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1329 on: September 02, 2021, 01:56:23 PM »

look at the street view it had gas stations before the new overpass the intersection was always busy so much that people got mad and the signal was taking so long and green lights were so short PLUS there is a railroad crossing there so if it went off a car might get hit by a train due to the jam so the intersection was messed up

Ironically, prior to the completion of the 58 freeway, the RR grade crossing on US 395, north of the actual Kramer Junction, didn't have much effect on traffic flow for the southward 395 to westward 58 traffic movement, part of the ersatz "L.A. bypass" and the route of much of that movement's volume; 58 did cross the tracks a couple of miles to the west right before the start of the Boron freeway section, but the backup there rarely reached the Junction.  Now, with CA 58 relocated north of the tracks, 395 traffic must cross the tracks to reach the interchange, so BNSF train movements now do regularly impact this traffic situation.  Long-range plans call for a 4-lane 395 relocation east of the junction (58/395 interchange type TBD) which will bridge the tracks -- but for the present, US 395 traffic crosses the RR at grade and probably will do so for at least the next decade unless funds can be identified enabling a more expedited development schedule. 
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14828
  • Transportation Design

  • Age: 26
  • Location: Renton, WA / Vancouver, BC
  • Last Login: August 11, 2022, 11:40:35 PM
    • Flickr
Re: California
« Reply #1330 on: September 04, 2021, 12:06:11 PM »

This post made me think of a question:

To me California cut outs are 😎 cool.



Thatís a more recent replacement/installation.  It has the cardinal direction on top of the shield instead of below, which is a recent change to the California MUTCD, and it also uses a First Letter is Larger cardinal direction sign, which is also a recent practice.  I agree with you that it looks good.


Does anyone know when route shields began to accompany the "freeway entrance" signs? Did they both show up at the same time?

As I recall, not all southern California freeways were opened with route numbers, and they were (and continue to be, in some capacity) called by their names instead. However, I think post-1964, all freeways that were unnumbered received numbers.

I also have no idea when "freeway entrance" signs became a thing. It easily could have have been after all routes were numbered.
Logged
Check out my Flickr | Add me on Facebook!

ClassicHasClass

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 623
  • 0-60 in 59.999997 years

  • Location: sunny So Cal
  • Last Login: August 11, 2022, 07:54:15 PM
    • Floodgap Roadgap
Re: California
« Reply #1331 on: September 04, 2021, 12:16:52 PM »

I'll be honest: can't think of a state-maintained California freeway that did not get a number after the Signed State Routes came into existence, and certainly way before the 1964 Great Renumbering. The names may have been in primary currency but virtually everything had a US shield or state shield at that point.
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14828
  • Transportation Design

  • Age: 26
  • Location: Renton, WA / Vancouver, BC
  • Last Login: August 11, 2022, 11:40:35 PM
    • Flickr
Re: California
« Reply #1332 on: September 04, 2021, 12:24:04 PM »

I'll be honest: can't think of a state-maintained California freeway that did not get a number after the Signed State Routes came into existence, and certainly way before the 1964 Great Renumbering. The names may have been in primary currency but virtually everything had a US shield or state shield at that point.

Ahh, got it. Not sure what I was remembering.

I guess the better question then: anyone know the history of the "freeway entrance" assembly? Was it a thing right away? Or much later?
Logged
Check out my Flickr | Add me on Facebook!

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 19394
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:53:29 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: California
« Reply #1333 on: September 04, 2021, 12:31:07 PM »

I'll be honest: can't think of a state-maintained California freeway that did not get a number after the Signed State Routes came into existence, and certainly way before the 1964 Great Renumbering. The names may have been in primary currency but virtually everything had a US shield or state shield at that point.

The Warren Boulevard Freeway (future CA 13) had completed segments prior to 1964 that were just a Legislative Route Number.  Likewise with a completed segment of current CA 77 not receiving a shield number until 1964.
Logged

J N Winkler

  • *
  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 7676
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas
  • Last Login: Today at 02:25:10 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1334 on: September 04, 2021, 01:23:21 PM »

I guess the better question then: anyone know the history of the "freeway entrance" assembly? Was it a thing right away? Or much later?

"Freeway Entrance" assemblies came into being as a result of research into preventing wrong-way driving in the early 1960's.  Double-loaded ramp configurations (off-ramp ending and on-ramp beginning at the same surface street intersection) were very common on early freeways in California, so a "Freeway Entrance" package at an on-ramp next to an off-ramp that received the wrong-way package ("Do Not Enter" and "Wrong Way" on the same post) was found to be beneficial in preventing wrong-way movements.

In the Facebook road groups, and I think occasionally on this forum, people complain about Caltrans using "Do Not Enter" and "Wrong Way" on the same post rather than "Do Not Enter" at the ramp terminus and "Wrong Way" midway between terminus and exit gore.  Personally, I think Caltrans' solution is sensible since it adds emphasis and it is desirable to prevent wrong-way travel of any length.  The traditional solution for the midramp position is an arrow in the pavement delineated using two-way reflectors that show red to wrong-way traffic.  Caltrans also used to have a spec for a "Go Back - You Are Going Wrong Way" sign, and experimented with lights and horns that activate whenever a wrong-way driver is detected.  These were not found to work well enough to justify rollout as standard provision.  (Part of the problem was that many wrong-way drivers, finding themselves halfway down the ramp, opted to keep going so they could correct travel direction by turning right across the exit gore instead of U-turning immediately.  This muddled thinking is characteristic of alcohol impairment, and it was found that the bulk of wrong-way driving incidents occurred after 2 AM bar closing.)
Logged
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1335 on: September 04, 2021, 04:11:01 PM »

I'll be honest: can't think of a state-maintained California freeway that did not get a number after the Signed State Routes came into existence, and certainly way before the 1964 Great Renumbering. The names may have been in primary currency but virtually everything had a US shield or state shield at that point.

The Warren Boulevard Freeway (future CA 13) had completed segments prior to 1964 that were just a Legislative Route Number.  Likewise with a completed segment of current CA 77 not receiving a shield number until 1964.

The short CA 77 section east of I-880 wasn't signed as such until about 10 years ago; prior to that, it was signed as a westward extension/north-end "leg" of CA 185, which intersected it at East 14th St. in East Oakland.  Frankly, IMO that arrangement made more sense than an isolated CA 77 "stub"; why D4 went the other way is a mystery.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 19394
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:53:29 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: California
« Reply #1336 on: September 04, 2021, 04:13:41 PM »

I'll be honest: can't think of a state-maintained California freeway that did not get a number after the Signed State Routes came into existence, and certainly way before the 1964 Great Renumbering. The names may have been in primary currency but virtually everything had a US shield or state shield at that point.

The Warren Boulevard Freeway (future CA 13) had completed segments prior to 1964 that were just a Legislative Route Number.  Likewise with a completed segment of current CA 77 not receiving a shield number until 1964.

The short CA 77 section east of I-880 wasn't signed as such until about 10 years ago; prior to that, it was signed as a westward extension/north-end "leg" of CA 185, which intersected it at East 14th St. in East Oakland.  Frankly, IMO that arrangement made more sense than an isolated CA 77 "stub"; why D4 went the other way is a mystery.

Considering the excessive amount of reassurance shields I would think someone in D4 had a strong affinity for what CA 77 was intended to be.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1337 on: September 05, 2021, 01:41:37 AM »

I'll be honest: can't think of a state-maintained California freeway that did not get a number after the Signed State Routes came into existence, and certainly way before the 1964 Great Renumbering. The names may have been in primary currency but virtually everything had a US shield or state shield at that point.

The Warren Boulevard Freeway (future CA 13) had completed segments prior to 1964 that were just a Legislative Route Number.  Likewise with a completed segment of current CA 77 not receiving a shield number until 1964.

The short CA 77 section east of I-880 wasn't signed as such until about 10 years ago; prior to that, it was signed as a westward extension/north-end "leg" of CA 185, which intersected it at East 14th St. in East Oakland.  Frankly, IMO that arrangement made more sense than an isolated CA 77 "stub"; why D4 went the other way is a mystery.

Considering the excessive amount of reassurance shields I would think someone in D4 had a strong affinity for what CA 77 was intended to be.

And which, between Oakland urban activists and Orinda/Lafayette NIMBY's, never really stood much of a chance of being developed as a freeway since initial corridor identification in 1959, still in the LRN era.  Nevertheless, 77 would have been a useful "relief route" for CA 24 and the Caldecott Tunnels. 
Logged

kkt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6315
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: August 11, 2022, 12:35:20 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1338 on: September 05, 2021, 02:45:57 AM »

This post made me think of a question:

To me California cut outs are 😎 cool.



Thatís a more recent replacement/installation.  It has the cardinal direction on top of the shield instead of below, which is a recent change to the California MUTCD, and it also uses a First Letter is Larger cardinal direction sign, which is also a recent practice.  I agree with you that it looks good.


Does anyone know when route shields began to accompany the "freeway entrance" signs? Did they both show up at the same time?

As I recall, not all southern California freeways were opened with route numbers, and they were (and continue to be, in some capacity) called by their names instead. However, I think post-1964, all freeways that were unnumbered received numbers.

I also have no idea when "freeway entrance" signs became a thing. It easily could have have been after all routes were numbered.

My recollection, from when I was a kid in the late 1960s and early 1970s, was that pretty much all the freeway entrances had "Freeway Entrance" signs much like the green one in the picture above, but they usually did NOT have route signs until much later.  If you were a newcomer in an area with several freeways (central Oakland for instance) it was confusing.  My experience is from the San Francisco Bay Area, and as we know the different Caltrans districts have different priorities.  I think they started adding the route signs in the mid 1970s and the entrances mostly had them by the mid 1980s.

I like the cutout shields too :)
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14309
  • fuck

  • Age: 14
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: August 11, 2022, 01:38:10 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1339 on: September 06, 2021, 12:02:53 AM »

I'll be honest: can't think of a state-maintained California freeway that did not get a number after the Signed State Routes came into existence, and certainly way before the 1964 Great Renumbering. The names may have been in primary currency but virtually everything had a US shield or state shield at that point.
SR 103 around San Diego (now SR 15 and I-15) is shown unsigned on official maps until 1969.
Logged
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

I agree to indemnify Belkin against unauthorized use of its MiniVak vacuum.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1340 on: September 06, 2021, 02:40:14 AM »

I'll be honest: can't think of a state-maintained California freeway that did not get a number after the Signed State Routes came into existence, and certainly way before the 1964 Great Renumbering. The names may have been in primary currency but virtually everything had a US shield or state shield at that point.
SR 103 around San Diego (now SR 15 and I-15) is shown unsigned on official maps until 1969.

As a UCR student at the time who made regular trips to San Diego, the first time I saw signage for CA 103 was in the fall of 1968, about the time that DOH was signing many previously-unsigned routes, including CA 83 on Euclid Ave. in Ontario and Upland and the parallel CA 31 on Milliken Avenue (later superseded by I-15); about that time the original CA 67 signage on the northeasternmost portion of the "Helix Freeway" (mostly CA 94 from I-5 east) was replaced by the signage for CA 125.  Also, in SD, CA 209 received signage about that time from I-5 to Point Loma.  The actual deployment of signage varied from district to district; D9, east of the Sierra, was the first to feature signage of every route within its jurisdiction, including CA's 182, 167, 158, 203, 168, and 136, all unsigned before 1967 (the signed reroute of CA 190 to Olancha occurred that year as well).  Signing efforts within D11 and D5, flanking L.A. along the coast, proceeded from the summer through the end of 1968; this included the CA 217 UCSB access freeway.   D7 in metro L.A. lagged a bit behind, with effective completion in the spring of 1969 -- although they did decline to sign some routes they considered nonessential, like CA 187 and CA 213; signages for both of those occurred in the mid-'80's.  What was interesting is that the "if we own it, we sign it" edict came down in early 1967 immediately after the (Reagan) gubernatorial change.  But both D6 and D10 in the Valley had begun to sign some of their previously unsigned routes prior to that; CA 137 received signage in early 1965, followed by CA 155 a year later after the alignment change into Delano from the original Oildale routing.  The shorter unsigned routes in the Visalia-Kingsburg area (CA 216, CA 201) happened in mid-1968, about the same time their counterparts in D5 were being signed.  But by the beginning of 1970 just about every existing mile of state highway, urban or rural, featured at least rudimentary reassurance signage.       
Logged

ClassicHasClass

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 623
  • 0-60 in 59.999997 years

  • Location: sunny So Cal
  • Last Login: August 11, 2022, 07:54:15 PM
    • Floodgap Roadgap
Re: California
« Reply #1341 on: September 07, 2021, 11:00:01 AM »

I'll be honest: can't think of a state-maintained California freeway that did not get a number after the Signed State Routes came into existence, and certainly way before the 1964 Great Renumbering. The names may have been in primary currency but virtually everything had a US shield or state shield at that point.

The Warren Boulevard Freeway (future CA 13) had completed segments prior to 1964 that were just a Legislative Route Number.  Likewise with a completed segment of current CA 77 not receiving a shield number until 1964.

Yeah, but these were incomplete discontinuous alignments, as you say. Myself I would put these more into the category of routes under construction, even though these specific sections were finished.

Quote
SR 103 around San Diego (now SR 15 and I-15) is shown unsigned on official maps until 1969.

I don't think this was a freeway until the mid 1960s, when it did have a route number (1963?): https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE103.html
« Last Edit: September 07, 2021, 11:07:05 AM by ClassicHasClass »
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14309
  • fuck

  • Age: 14
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: August 11, 2022, 01:38:10 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1342 on: September 07, 2021, 02:09:15 PM »

Quote
SR 103 around San Diego (now SR 15 and I-15) is shown unsigned on official maps until 1969.

I don't think this was a freeway until the mid 1960s, when it did have a route number (1963?): https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE103.html
It had a route number but not a signed route number. Pre-1964, it was 283, which was assigned in 1959 on what seems to have been a locally maintained partially constructed freeway.
Logged
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

I agree to indemnify Belkin against unauthorized use of its MiniVak vacuum.

jander

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 56
  • Location: san francisco
  • Last Login: February 17, 2022, 10:39:45 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1343 on: September 11, 2021, 04:55:43 PM »

Does anyone know why CA-1 cuts inland south of Bodega Bay and then heading back inland after Tomalas?  Why not just keep going along the coast directly?   
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 19394
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:53:29 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: California
« Reply #1344 on: September 11, 2021, 04:59:29 PM »

Does anyone know why CA-1 cuts inland south of Bodega Bay and then heading back inland after Tomalas?  Why not just keep going along the coast directly?

CA 1 was planned to be aligned further inland on a bypass of Bodega Bay:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/02/california-state-route-1-shoreline.html?m=1
Logged

bing101

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4317
  • Last Login: August 11, 2022, 12:19:17 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1345 on: September 17, 2021, 12:02:41 PM »

Here is a tour of I-80 by Rockersk08
Logged

stevashe

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 355
  • Age: 26
  • Location: Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: August 10, 2022, 06:35:27 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1346 on: September 19, 2021, 06:34:08 PM »

Does anyone know when route shields began to accompany the "freeway entrance" signs? Did they both show up at the same time?

As I recall, not all southern California freeways were opened with route numbers, and they were (and continue to be, in some capacity) called by their names instead. However, I think post-1964, all freeways that were unnumbered received numbers.

I also have no idea when "freeway entrance" signs became a thing. It easily could have have been after all routes were numbered.

Are you sure you can't think of one?



Yes, Westside Parkway will be CA 58, but it isn't right now! Plus, it does feature Freeway Entrance signs without any markers. Most of the entrances have a rather odd looking assembly with just direction and arrow plaques, omitting the "Westside Parkway" sign in the above image.

Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14828
  • Transportation Design

  • Age: 26
  • Location: Renton, WA / Vancouver, BC
  • Last Login: August 11, 2022, 11:40:35 PM
    • Flickr
Re: California
« Reply #1347 on: September 19, 2021, 10:11:57 PM »

Does anyone know when route shields began to accompany the "freeway entrance" signs? Did they both show up at the same time?

As I recall, not all southern California freeways were opened with route numbers, and they were (and continue to be, in some capacity) called by their names instead. However, I think post-1964, all freeways that were unnumbered received numbers.

I also have no idea when "freeway entrance" signs became a thing. It easily could have have been after all routes were numbered.

Are you sure you can't think of one?



Yes, Westside Parkway will be CA 58, but it isn't right now! Plus, it does feature Freeway Entrance signs without any markers. Most of the entrances have a rather odd looking assembly with just direction and arrow plaques, omitting the "Westside Parkway" sign in the above image.



That's cool!

I checked it out on Street View, and it does remind me a bit of some of the assemblies in Washington, apart from the cardinal direction plaque which seems to be quite rare around here (with down-facing arrows being more common, although not in every region).

I'm not sure I realized that stretch of freeway was yet to be numbered.
Logged
Check out my Flickr | Add me on Facebook!

ClassicHasClass

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 623
  • 0-60 in 59.999997 years

  • Location: sunny So Cal
  • Last Login: August 11, 2022, 07:54:15 PM
    • Floodgap Roadgap
Re: California
« Reply #1348 on: September 19, 2021, 10:27:25 PM »

Yeah, but is that actually state highway? I don't think it's Caltrans-maintained, at least not yet.
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4508
  • Last Login: August 11, 2022, 02:48:47 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1349 on: September 20, 2021, 01:27:27 AM »

Yeah, but is that actually state highway? I don't think it's Caltrans-maintained, at least not yet.

IIRC Westside Parkway was officially added to Route 58 around December 2020 or so (see Joe Rouse's post in the Westside thread, linked below), and at the western connection to Stockdale Highway I did see (but didn't get a photo of) the Route 58 shield at the Freeway Entrance sign assembly out there back on August 19th.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11312.msg2652328#msg2652328

There is also a TO Route 58 sign at Mohawk my friend got a photo of:
DSC_5745 by Chris Sampang, on Flickr
Logged
Chris Sampang

 


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.