California

[mrsman]

Reading by the latest posts on this thread, it seems that there was a lot of realignment of routings between 1926 and 1939.  It's surprising, because I assumed that any us highway essentially followed one routing until the freeways were built.  But it seems like 101, 99, 60, and 66 kept changing their routings.


Nexus 5X

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
L.A. wasn't the only city to experience several iterations of surface-street state highway routings between 1926 and the nascent freeways of the late '40's and early '50's; San Francisco, Oakland, Sacramento, and even Fresno saw routings of not only the U.S. highways through town but also state routes as well (Max R. has delineated the Fresno historical routings quite exhaustively).  Originally, many routes ran right through the CBD's of the various cities, but the negative aspects of that situation caused many city-center routes to wear out their welcome quickly (most by the mid-30's) -- with the notable exception of Sacramento, in which just about everything possible was routed right past the state capitol grounds!  To plot the progression of routings through the cities from the 20's to the 60's one would need each years' official highway map plus every issue of CHPW that one could lay hands upon!  And some of the temporary routings from the 50's and 60's, while freeways were being built one segment at a time, were sometimes reasonably direct, but at other times convoluted in order to take advantage of as much freeway mileage as possible.     

[TheStranger]

^^^^^^^^
L.A. wasn't the only city to experience several iterations of surface-street state highway routings between 1926 and the nascent freeways of the late '40's and early '50's; San Francisco, Oakland, Sacramento, and even Fresno saw routings of not only the U.S. highways through town but also state routes as well (Max R. has delineated the Fresno historical routings quite exhaustively).  Originally, many routes ran right through the CBD's of the various cities, but the negative aspects of that situation caused many city-center routes to wear out their welcome quickly (most by the mid-30's) -- with the notable exception of Sacramento, in which just about everything possible was routed right past the state capitol grounds!  To plot the progression of routings through the cities from the 20's to the 60's one would need each years' official highway map plus every issue of CHPW that one could lay hands upon!  And some of the temporary routings from the 50's and 60's, while freeways were being built one segment at a time, were sometimes reasonably direct, but at other times convoluted in order to take advantage of as much freeway mileage as possible.     

Looking at historic maps, wasn't US 50 always on the MacArthur corridor in Oakland with few changes, with US 40 always following Eastshore (and the San Pablo Avenue business route) beyond the Maze area?

SF's history, I'll create a seperate post for that

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
L.A. wasn't the only city to experience several iterations of surface-street state highway routings between 1926 and the nascent freeways of the late '40's and early '50's; San Francisco, Oakland, Sacramento, and even Fresno saw routings of not only the U.S. highways through town but also state routes as well (Max R. has delineated the Fresno historical routings quite exhaustively).  Originally, many routes ran right through the CBD's of the various cities, but the negative aspects of that situation caused many city-center routes to wear out their welcome quickly (most by the mid-30's) -- with the notable exception of Sacramento, in which just about everything possible was routed right past the state capitol grounds!  To plot the progression of routings through the cities from the 20's to the 60's one would need each years' official highway map plus every issue of CHPW that one could lay hands upon!  And some of the temporary routings from the 50's and 60's, while freeways were being built one segment at a time, were sometimes reasonably direct, but at other times convoluted in order to take advantage of as much freeway mileage as possible.     

Looking at historic maps, wasn't US 50 always on the MacArthur corridor in Oakland with few changes, with US 40 always following Eastshore (and the San Pablo Avenue business route) beyond the Maze area?

SF's history, I'll create a seperate post for that

It was always on the basic MacArthur corridor (which used to be called Foothill in the San Leandro area) west to Grand Ave.; prior to the Bay Bridge's construction it turned southwest on Grand to Broadway, then turned SSW on Broadway to the ferry terminal located near Jack London Square (also used by US 40 coming in down San Pablo Avenue).  It was rerouted over MacArthur to the old Distribution Structure (the forerunner of the 80/580/880 interchange) in 1936 when the bridge opened. 

[AsphaltPlanet]

I made an up to date video of the 405 freeway through Sepulveda Pass.

I know this road has been done a bunch of times, but I had nice light, and light Sunday morning traffic.

[jakeroot]

I made an up to date video of the 405 freeway through Sepulveda Pass.

https://youtu.be/F7862KBukvs

I know this road has been done a bunch of times, but I had nice light, and light Sunday morning traffic.

Very nice! Couple spelling errors but nothing that can be changed now

[AsphaltPlanet]

it wouldn't be one of my videos if i didn't type something in incorrectly.

[jakeroot]

it wouldn't be one of my videos if i didn't type something in incorrectly.

humility is a good trait.

[MarkF]

I made an up to date video of the 405 freeway through Sepulveda Pass.

I know this road has been done a bunch of times, but I had nice light, and light Sunday morning traffic.

I don't think I've ever not had thick traffic in the section north of LAX to I-10, or coming up on the 405-101 interchange.
The lightest traffic I usually see in L.A is on a Sunday when the following Monday is a holiday.

I shot a video of that stretch on a Sunday afternoon last June, didn't have your luck with traffic.

[AsphaltPlanet]

Yeah, I was lucky to have good traffic when I filmed it.  I did deliberately choose to film on a Sunday morning in hopes for finding the best traffic, but you never know with construction and traffic accidents what kind of traffic you're actually going to encounter.

[Max Rockatansky]

Picked up an unused G28-1 spec California State Route 14 shield:

Untitled by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

I run into this shield type now and then out on the State Highways. Generally I've founded them to be somewhat common in Southern California mostly.  The G28-1 spec shield is substantially smaller than the G28-2 shield that is a far more common variant.  Personally I think the G28-1 is pretty ugly but it fits well in my garage with the bigger shields.  Below I linked over the California MUTCD specs for G28-1 and G28-2 shields.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/tcd/docs/G28-1.pdf

http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/tcd/docs/G28-2.pdf

[roadfro]

MOD NOTE: Taking a cue from the Northwest and Mountain West boards, I've set this thread as a sticky for random observations or questions relating to California. Moving forward, if a topic in this thread starts delving into detailed/extended conversation, I'll likely split that discussion off to a more dedicated thread. –Roadfro

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^
Field deployment of these smaller and wider-profile shields lacking the state name varies by Caltrans district; I've yet to see them extensively used in D4 and D5 -- although they are starting to show up over on CA 99 in areas undergoing upgrades (such as the Manteca-Stockton segment).  From a visual standpoint alone, they're less prone to look horrible when numbers are placed/kerned irregularly; the "CALIFORNIA" arc above the numbers makes poorly fabricated signs look even worse (D4, take notice!).

[Max Rockatansky]

^^^^^^^^^
Field deployment of these smaller and wider-profile shields lacking the state name varies by Caltrans district; I've yet to see them extensively used in D4 and D5 -- although they are starting to show up over on CA 99 in areas undergoing upgrades (such as the Manteca-Stockton segment).  From a visual standpoint alone, they're less prone to look horrible when numbers are placed/kerned irregularly; the "CALIFORNIA" arc above the numbers makes poorly fabricated signs look even worse (D4, take notice!).

I've only seen a couple real world examples myself with a CA 180 in D6 and a D5 with the CA 227 that I've mentioned several times.  Yosemite National Park has a grouping of CA 120/CA 140 G28-1 style shields but considering their US Route shields at MUTCD compliant I would hardly call those official.  The AAroads shield gallery has a CA 14 and CA 178 pair of G28-1 shields that was at some sort of swap meet:

https://www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=CA19751781

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^
Field deployment of these smaller and wider-profile shields lacking the state name varies by Caltrans district; I've yet to see them extensively used in D4 and D5 -- although they are starting to show up over on CA 99 in areas undergoing upgrades (such as the Manteca-Stockton segment).  From a visual standpoint alone, they're less prone to look horrible when numbers are placed/kerned irregularly; the "CALIFORNIA" arc above the numbers makes poorly fabricated signs look even worse (D4, take notice!).

I've only seen a couple real world examples myself with a CA 180 in D6 and a D5 with the CA 227 that I've mentioned several times.  Yosemite National Park has a grouping of CA 120/CA 140 G28-1 style shields but considering their US Route shields at MUTCD compliant I would hardly call those official.  The AAroads shield gallery has a CA 14 and CA 178 pair of G28-1 shields that was at some sort of swap meet:

https://www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=CA19751781

Most of my D5 sojourns are in Santa Cruz, San Benito, and northern Monterey counties; the state-name-less shields just don't seem to have been deployed up there; the next time I go south to L.A. -- if I use US 101 -- I'll look for the CA 227 shields Max mentioned.  It's probably as simple as some of Caltrans' corporate yards stocking one shield type or another; SLO may have some "neutered" shields while Salinas doesn't.

[bing101]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vGNk8dfOdU


Cool Ride on the CA-2 and former US-66 by Interstate 411

[Max Rockatansky]

Had a weird sign find yesterday with a co-signed CR J6-7 Shield:

https://flic.kr/p/2dAjdqH

[sparker]

Hmmm.......J6-7; that would make J-1!  Seriously, that must be SB; I've taken J7 all the way NB and don't recall seeing that sign -- it certainly would have made an impression!  I suppose we Californians should be damn lucky that there are still some county pentagons out there in the field!

[NE2]

That one's southbound, but there is an equivalent northbound:

[Max Rockatansky]

Regarding the J7-6 shield I saw it at the last second hence the crappy pic on my end.  To that end J7 has a ton of signage but I would consider much of it to be "good"  given the placement.  Most of the J7 shields were mounted below Signs for road junctions, especially on Mariposa Road in San Joaquin County.  It would have been easy to lose J7 had I not be already aware what the routing actually was.  In Riverbank J7 traffic is routed onto CA 108 eastbound, there is no reassurance shield at all at Claus Road. 

[sparker]

IMO what CA needs is a good county-maintained "secondary" system to replace the inconsistent and occasionally just weird signed county networks (but with the current state criteria, Caltrans will end up paying for a good chunk of those roads as well) a la NJ.  Many years ago I took a bunch of county-level ACSC/CSAA maps and laid out a system (mostly rural except for a couple of suburban connectors) -- a Jersey-like (#500 and up) system starting in the San Diego area and working north.  Lots of shield concepts; but few retaining the pentagon standard or color scheme.  One of these days I'll get it recreated and post it (but don't hold your breath; it'll come when I can find the time). 

Just got back from a short round-trip down to Hollister.  US 101 north from the end of the freeway south of Gilroy to Cochrane Road in Morgan Hill (where it expands from 6 to 8 lanes) has recently been restriped with 6-inch lines; the southern section (as far north as the San Martin truck scales) still has raised reflective wedges in between the lane stripes; but they're more sporadic the farther north one gets.  I'm guessing that if the wedges detach themselves, D4 isn't replacing them -- but somehow the ones around Gilroy are pretty much all intact.  Light rain was occurring during my trip north (well after dark), but the stripes lacked any reflective element; at night, the reflective dots were much more useful.  The combination of the wider stripes plus the dots seems to work exceptionally well at night to delineate the lanes; IMO it's a mistake to get rid of the dots/wedges.

[Max Rockatansky]

^^^

I did a whole Fictional County Route Thread I think last year more or less on the same topic.  Essentially a good County Route program can be laid out simply by following the terrain to rural towns and areas of tourism interest in the boons.  The major secondary roads in urban areas tend to be fairly obvious and could be included in the such a system too.  The current County Route marker is fine but personally I'd like to see something with a little more flair like a white spade displaying "County"  in the crest somehow.  I always liked how Florida kept a good assortment of County Routes...granted most were State Roads at one point and still fit in the state grid. 

[sparker]

^^^

I did a whole Fictional County Route Thread I think last year more or less on the same topic.  Essentially a good County Route program can be laid out simply by following the terrain to rural towns and areas of tourism interest in the boons.  The major secondary roads in urban areas tend to be fairly obvious and could be included in the such a system too.  The current County Route marker is fine but personally I'd like to see something with a little more flair like a white spade displaying "County"  in the crest somehow.  I always liked how Florida kept a good assortment of County Routes...granted most were State Roads at one point and still fit in the state grid. 

The best idea that I came up with for a shield would have been a rectangular sign with a standard green background containing a white spade (same shape as state signs), with the word "SECONDARY ROUTE" above the shield and "COUNTY MAINTAINED" below.  The numbers (black) would be adhesive and applied by the applicable signing crew.  Directional arrows and banners (END/JCT) would be applied as with state highways. 

It's probably hoping against hope, but possibly the counties could and would do a better job with a cohesive secondary network that with both the current and largely haphazard approach -- and even better than current Caltrans practice for those highways under their jurisdiction. 

[Max Rockatansky]

^^^

I did a whole Fictional County Route Thread I think last year more or less on the same topic.  Essentially a good County Route program can be laid out simply by following the terrain to rural towns and areas of tourism interest in the boons.  The major secondary roads in urban areas tend to be fairly obvious and could be included in the such a system too.  The current County Route marker is fine but personally I'd like to see something with a little more flair like a white spade displaying "County"  in the crest somehow.  I always liked how Florida kept a good assortment of County Routes...granted most were State Roads at one point and still fit in the state grid. 

The best idea that I came up with for a shield would have been a rectangular sign with a standard green background containing a white spade (same shape as state signs), with the word "SECONDARY ROUTE" above the shield and "COUNTY MAINTAINED" below.  The numbers (black) would be adhesive and applied by the applicable signing crew.  Directional arrows and banners (END/JCT) would be applied as with state highways. 

It's probably hoping against hope, but possibly the counties could and would do a better job with a cohesive secondary network that with both the current and largely haphazard approach -- and even better than current Caltrans practice for those highways under their jurisdiction.

Something like this but reverse?

IMG_7686 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

[sparker]

Somewhat like that, but a bit more rectangular favoring the horizontal.  White where the green is, green where the white is, with black numbers and the route type ID top & bottom.  Chances are to get 3 numbers onto the shield, the stick-on black digits would be series "A" or "B".  Overall, probably about 3.0' (horizontal) x 2.5' (vertical).  Could be posted on existing light standards, parking signs, etc. without too much trouble.