Antelope Valley Freeway Ca 14

[Interstate Trav]

Since this is my favorite freeway next to the 15 Mojave Freeway, I thought it would be nice to have a thread about it.

Are there any widening projects  going on anywhere on the freeway?  Opinions of the freeway.  Ect.

[Quillz]

It needs to be widened, it has way too much traffic these days. I also still wish it was U.S. 6.

[agentsteel53]

that long 6/395 multiplex is difficult to justify.  Especially given that 6 is nominally east-west.  The most sensible way to extend US-6 to the west coast is via CA-120 to I-580 to the Bay Area.

[Quillz]

I'd just rather CA-14 be used for an actual west-east route.

[agentsteel53]

I'd just rather CA-14 be used for an actual west-east route.

I think at one point it was planned to be a long extension going west from where it currently ends, which is why they gave it the east-west route number.  it still would've been quite L-shaped though... so giving it the north-south would've made sense too.  It could've been CA-37 or something.  (Recall: at the time, the northern route that now has that number was CA-48.  And besides, they totally gave up on the north-south parity distinction when assigning 35 to a Norcal route, so having 37 be a Socal wouldn't be an unprecedented violation.)

[TheStranger]

I'd just rather CA-14 be used for an actual west-east route.

I think at one point it was planned to be a long extension going west from where it currently ends

Nope, the extension to Malibu/Reseda would have been (and is still on the books as a paper route going) north-south.  I've always wondered why 14 was assigned here as well, but then again, former US 101 segments became Route 82 and 72 so there seems to be a tendency to give opposite-direction state route numbers to some former US route segments.

[Quillz]

I think 21 is the lowest south-north route currently unassigned. That should be used in place of CA-14. (If they don't bring back US-6.)

[agentsteel53]

there was a 21, though, in 1964.  I believe 1969 is when it got renumbered to I-680.

[TheStranger]

there was a 21, though, in 1964.  I believe 1969 is when it got renumbered to I-680.

IIRC, 680 south of Benicia was already assigned in 1964 (it was in the original Interstate plans for california), but the segment of 21 between Benicia and Cordelia/Fairfield remained a non-Interstate freeway until 1976, when 680 was rerouted there while the existing freeway from Benicia to Vallejo became I-780.

[agentsteel53]

I had known that 780 was originally part of 680 (explains the lack of porcelain 780 shields) but did not know that the original 680 designation went back to the beginning.  the 21->680 greenout signs must then all have been on, or referring to, the northern segment.  There was one until about 2002 that showed an outline interstate shield over a clearly visible outline of a 21!

[Bickendan]

Is US 6 through Nevada still called the Midland Trail? I think that would be the only justification for the US6/395 duplex if 6 were reextended onto CA 14.

[agentsteel53]

Is US 6 through Nevada still called the Midland Trail? I think that would be the only justification for the US6/395 duplex if 6 were reextended onto CA 14.

the only people that still call it the Midland Trail are old trail geeks.

[NE2]

I had known that 780 was originally part of 680 (explains the lack of porcelain 780 shields) but did not know that the original 680 designation went back to the beginning.

Back to the "beginning", meaning 1959 (though the south end wasn't finalized until 1964; it originally used current I-880 to SR 262) - but SR 21 was there before the 1964 renumbering, and in fact remained on signs until enough of I-680 was completed to remove it (like the U.S. Routes continued to partially exist after 1964): http://www.cosmos-monitor.com/ca/map1966/insets/sf-bay-area.html (note that I-680 is still shown on current I-880, since the present route was not yet built)

[Interstate Trav]

Wow seeing by how people want it renamed to uS 6 again, does noone like the 14?  I guess it's just something about the way the signs look for California 14. 

[NE2]

Not everyone has the same irrational preferences.

[Quillz]

Wow seeing by how people want it renamed to uS 6 again, does noone like the 14?  I guess it's just something about the way the signs look for California 14. 

Has nothing to do with the shields, I just think 6 is a better number for the alignment rather than 14.

[TheStranger]

I had known that 780 was originally part of 680 (explains the lack of porcelain 780 shields) but did not know that the original 680 designation went back to the beginning.

Back to the "beginning", meaning 1959 (though the south end wasn't finalized until 1964; it originally used current I-880 to SR 262) - but SR 21 was there before the 1964 renumbering, and in fact remained on signs until enough of I-680 was completed to remove it (like the U.S. Routes continued to partially exist after 1964): http://www.cosmos-monitor.com/ca/map1966/insets/sf-bay-area.html (note that I-680 is still shown on current I-880, since the present route was not yet built)

A couple of interesting notes on that map:

- as shown in other CalTrans cartography of the era, Route 238 continued south down Oakland Road to US 101 in San Jose, a routing which was truncated once I-680 was built south of Route 262

- Route 21's south end was quite a ways north from 680's eventual south end, at today's 880/262 junction.  (Pre-1964, 21 started at 17/today's 880 while concurrent with Route 9.)

[Interstate Trav]

Wow seeing by how people want it renamed to uS 6 again, does noone like the 14?  I guess it's just something about the way the signs look for California 14. 

Has nothing to do with the shields, I just think 6 is a better number for the alignment rather than 14.

Actually, I kinda mistyped that, I meant that to me there is something about the California 14 shields.  Meaning I like them.  Sorry about the confusion.

[Sykotyk]

I think in California with the devaluing of the US shields, any that still are in existence are considered to be 'major routes'. US95, US97, US50, US395, US101, etc. So, bringing back US 6 and routing it down to LA via CA14 would make it another 'major route'.

Plus, the one thing I've noticed talking to people is that changing route numbers, etc in directions is a little much for the road-weary. Even if it's the same road. That's what made PA60-US22/US30-I279 to where I lived so confusing. It's the SAME ROAD I would tell them when they started getting confused. Do not exit, it's the same road. Sure enough, somebody would get off in Robinson on PA60 toward the east, or inadvertently take US22/US30 to the west. That works the same with long distances. People like to stick to one route number for as long as possible. I-70 to I-370 to I-270 to I-70 through St. Louis will confuse a) those without maps, b) those without a sense of direction and c) those without patience. They'd invariably stay on I-70 through downtown simply so it would be less confusing for them.

Signing US6 to LA, again, could make that a preferred alternate to the crowded interstates from SLC, bypassing Las Vegas and going more scenic. Who knows. But, there's no sense truncating a transcontinental route when it's not superseded by something higher (i.e., interstate designation).

[TheStranger]

Signing US6 to LA, again, could make that a preferred alternate to the crowded interstates from SLC, bypassing Las Vegas and going more scenic. Who knows. But, there's no sense truncating a transcontinental route when it's not superseded by something higher (i.e., interstate designation).

I think in that case, it had to do with the concurrencies that existed on the south end of 6 (I-5/US 99, Route 11/US 66, what was then US 101A) as well as the lengthy one with US 395 north of Inyokern.

[Bickendan]

Personally, if concurrencies was the issue, the California legislation should have found a better reason.

[xonhulu]

Signing US6 to LA, again, could make that a preferred alternate to the crowded interstates from SLC, bypassing Las Vegas and going more scenic. Who knows. But, there's no sense truncating a transcontinental route when it's not superseded by something higher (i.e., interstate designation).

I agree with you, but that's not AASHTO's official policy, which seemingly encourages doing exactly what California did: replace the US Route with a State Route.

[TheStranger]

Personally, if concurrencies was the issue, the California legislation should have found a better reason.

I don't think it was US 6's set of concurrencies that ultimately led to the 1964 changes, but stuff like the old I-15/Route 18/US 91/US 395 and the I-10/US 60/70/99 co-routings that gave the impetus for the system reworking.