Hello all,
It's my first post here, although I am a longtime lurker. Great to be here on this excellent forum with all of you!
I wanted to share a thought I've always had while driving. Apologies if this has been addressed or if I am posting it in the wrong place.
Immediately upon leaving Downtown Los Angeles, US 101 North has a control city of "Ventura", and it retains this control city the entire way to Ventura - all through the Los Angeles Basin, the San Fernando Valley, and the Conejo Valley. Starting at the interchange with CA 126 in Ventura, the control city becomes San Francisco - and it remains as such until US 101 enters the San Francisco city limits almost 300 miles later.
However, when we look at US 101 South, the control city is Los Angeles immediately upon leaving San Francisco. Ventura never acts as a control city and is never present on any signs (with the exception of on mileage signs, perhaps). The main control city for southbound US 101 is always Los Angeles.
Is there a reason for this? I know one could argue that most motorists who head south on US 101 for long distances are heading towards Los Angeles, but could one not argue the same for San Francisco on the northbound side? I'm just curious as to why San Francisco is not a control city in the Los Angeles area for US 101, and, conversely, why Ventura's status as a control city for US 101 N is not echoed for the southbound side.
Thank you so much! I'm curious to discussing this with others - unless there is a really obvious answer that I'm missing. :hmmm:
It's a good question and it has been discussed a bit before on this board, but I personally think it's worth bringing up again.
As to why Ventura is used in LA County, I would guess it's partially due to the name: Ventura Freeway. Also I-5 is, for many, the preferred route to reach SF.
As for the rest of it, San Francisco is used inconsistently. In SLO, Salinas appears along with SF. At 154, Santa Maria and Santa Barbara are used. And I believe Santa Barbara is used in parts of Ventura County.
The previous discussion was on what happens up here: after Salinas, San Francisco is the only control city until you reach Gilroy, when San Jose appears on some of the surface street interchanges.
I think 101 is a bit of a wildcard because it's both a long distance route as well as a local highway. While I-5 doesn't really serve any sizable communities outside of LA County, 101 makes some very important local connections.
A lot of this is speculation and opinion though.
Thanks for your reply, Coatimundi! Interesting!
That's a very good point you bring up about Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, Salinas, and San Jose being used (along with San Francisco) as you continue heading up US 101. Now that you mention it, I do recall seeing those used as control cities as you get closer to each of those areas, although, San Francisco is almost always listed alongside them.
Interesting that you bring up I-5. In the LA area, San Francisco is never used as a control city on I-5, even though most motorists prefer I-5 when traveling to the Bay Area. I have seen San Francisco used as a control city on I-5 where CA 99 splits off after the Grapevine, though, but never in the LA area. In fact, I can't think of a single instance on any interstate or highway in LA where San Francisco is used as a control city (Sacramento is for I-5, and Ventura for US 101) although I do think LA is used as a control city on US 101 in the Bay Area in quite a few places.
I wonder if it's because LA, being a larger city, is seen as a more 'principal' destination and is thus given top billing on US 101 even as far away as the Bay Area, while more local destinations are touted on the opposite journey north?
By the way, is it just me, or has CalTrans removed Bakersfield as a control city from most highways in the LA area? I seem to remember in the 1990s that Bakersfield was used as a control city (either alongside or instead of Sacramento) on I-5 and maybe on I-210 but now it's only Sacramento. Or, maybe it's just the Mandela effect (https://www.buzzfeed.com/christopherhudspeth/crazy-examples-of-the-mandela-effect-that-will-make-you-ques?utm_term=.evL6mzpA9#.uwMxN9arA) playing a trick on me. :bigass:
Quote from: Hiroshi66 on November 23, 2016, 08:29:05 PM
However, when we look at US 101 South, the control city is Los Angeles immediately upon leaving San Francisco.
A minor correction:
Los Angeles is first signed from US 101 south at the Route 85 junction in Mountain View. San Jose is pretty much the only control city between Interstate 80 and Route 85 along the Bayshore Freeway southbound.
Quote from: Hiroshi66By the way, is it just me, or has CalTrans removed Bakersfield as a control city from most highways in the LA area?
That is correct. I have always presumed that was because when the West Side Freeway wasn't finished yet (into the 1970s), the Golden State Freeway route to Bakersfield was the next logical destination, but once the West Side portion of I-5 was constructed, Sacramento became preferred as the one numbered route heading out towards Grapevine from LA is the one that goes to the state capital.
Quote from: TheStranger on November 24, 2016, 12:09:34 AM
Los Angeles is first signed from US 101 south at the Route 85 junction in Mountain View. San Jose is pretty much the only control city between Interstate 80 and Route 85 along the Bayshore Freeway southbound.
But San Jose is the sole control city on 237 eastbound. INCONSISTENCIES!
Quote from: Hiroshi66 on November 23, 2016, 10:47:13 PM
I wonder if it's because LA, being a larger city, is seen as a more 'principal' destination and is thus given top billing on US 101 even as far away as the Bay Area, while more local destinations are touted on the opposite journey north?
Part of this is that very few people from the Bay Area are taking 101 south to Ventura. Mostly they're going to SLO County or to LA. Even Salinas, in spite of its population (it's the largest city on 101 between Los Angeles and San Jose), lacks the prominence to really warrant a control city designation on most of the highway. It's used in SLO and at the 156 east interchange (the west doesn't use a control city for the southbound ramp, although it should because I've seen people stopped within the gore many times, confused about the signage), but is mostly excluded, even within Monterey County.
And I think this, again, comes down to driver habits: those of us in Monterey County already know that 101 north in the southern part of the county leads you to Salinas. People not from the area are very likely not interested in going to Salinas, they're going to the Bay Area, which is reflected in the "San Francisco" control city. Conversely, those going to Ventura County would be going toward Los Angeles. Not to Los Angeles, but toward it.
That's my thought on it, at least.
Welcome to the group. Caltrans employee here.
I think what you're seeing is a difference in practices in terms of control city signing between Caltrans districts. The districts have the latitude to set control cities on freeways and 3-digit interstates in their jurisdictions (control cities on the primary interstate routes are set by AASHTO). Consistency in control cities is encouraged, but as you can see, it isn't always applied.
iPhone
Quote from: jrouse on November 24, 2016, 12:22:53 AM
Welcome to the group. Caltrans employee here.
I think what you're seeing is a difference in practices in terms of control city signing between Caltrans districts. The districts have the latitude to set control cities on freeways and 3-digit interstates in their jurisdictions (control cities on the primary interstate routes are set by AASHTO). Consistency in control cities is encouraged, but as you can see, it isn't always applied.
iPhone
True that. Best example: I-5 NB control city of Los Angeles in San Diego County, but uses Santa Ana in southern Orange County.
Thank you all for your comments and corrections! I appreciate it. :)
That makes a lot of sense. I had completely forgotten that San Jose is used as a control city on US 101 S in the South Bay and so I guess its function as a control city is similar to Ventura in the LA Metropolitan area. The Santa Ana-Los Angeles inconsistency on I-5 NB is a good comparison, too.
I'm glad to hear that I'm not just remembering incorrectly that Bakersfield used to be the control city on I-5 N in the Los Angeles area. I remember it being so as late as the early 2000s, but now it's consistently Sacramento.
Speaking of control cities, I always get a kick out of how the control city on CA 170 NB is Sacramento. I guess it makes sense since it functions as a link between US 101 and I-5, but at that point in LA the distances between the two are still close enough so that people heading up north would have already been taking I-5 NB out of the Downtown area in the first place. (Then again, I can't think of a better control city for CA 170 NB. At least they didn't do what they do on I-605 and just put "THRU TRAFFIC" as a control city. LOL!
To echo a little of what was said above - in the older signage, Caltrans District 5 (Central Coast) had been very consistent with their signage on US-101: next major city (San Jose, Salinas, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura) plus San Francisco northbound and Los Angeles southbound. This changes once you enter District 4 at Santa Clara County or District 7 at Ventura County.
Quote from: Hiroshi66 on November 23, 2016, 08:29:05 PM
Ventura never acts as a control city and is never present on any signs (with the exception of on mileage signs, perhaps). The main control city for southbound US 101 is always Los Angeles.
There had been a sign on US-101 southbound in Montecito with controls of Ventura/Los Angeles, but this was lost when the left exit was configured.
Along these lines: US-101 has no pull-throughs with control cities between south San Jose and San Juan Bautista, and there's no mention of Los Angeles at the CA-152 junction (although it does mention "to I-5"). I had wondered if that was to avoid "endorsing" one route over the other, since I-5 is faster and shorter, but requires crossing over CA-152 (two lanes undivided for part of the route).
It should be noted that the mileage sign between San Jose and Morgan Hill lists 382 miles to Los Angeles, which would be using US-101, but I imagine that's left over from before I-5 was constructed.
Quote from: DTComposer on November 24, 2016, 12:04:04 PM
Along these lines: US-101 has no pull-throughs with control cities between south San Jose and San Juan Bautista, and there's no mention of Los Angeles at the CA-152 junction (although it does mention "to I-5"). I had wondered if that was to avoid "endorsing" one route over the other, since I-5 is faster and shorter, but requires crossing over CA-152 (two lanes undivided for part of the route).
It should be noted that the mileage sign between San Jose and Morgan Hill lists 382 miles to Los Angeles, which would be using US-101, but I imagine that's left over from before I-5 was constructed.
I think this is spot on. I cannot think of anywhere in the state where SF is used in the south where either 101 or 5 is a feasible choice. But once you are committed to one route over the other, then these controls are used extensively. So in LA and the SF Valley you can still feasibly get to either 5 or 101, but when you are north of Ventura you committed to 101 and when you are north of Wheeler Ridge, you committed to I-5.
To add to the confusion, there are some places in LA where Sacramento is the control on the 101! The 101 Hollywood Freeway, of course, splits in North Hollywood to 170 to I-5 to Sac and 101 towards Ventura. So yes, along the 101 Hollywood Freeway you can reach Sacramento, even though 101 itself doesn't get there.
I believe the reason for this was that there was some Caltrans directive that said that Ventura isn't a proper control city so some of the newer signs say Sacramento. Although, most of the signs are along the street, but I believe they are Caltrans, but maybe they are from LA City.
Here's an example at the Alvarado Street on-ramp:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0724775,-118.266826,3a,75y,179.72h,74.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZRIpCbwTnbh1Cu6LlSwf6Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Likewise, I cannot think of anywhere in the state where LA is used in the north where either 101 or 5 is a feasible choice. LA is only along 101 south of CA-85. You don't see mention of Los Anglese on the road to I-5 along I-580 until you are way beyond Livermore.
Quote from: mrsman on November 25, 2016, 12:04:01 PM
Likewise, I cannot think of anywhere in the state where LA is used in the north where either 101 or 5 is a feasible choice. LA is only along 101 south of CA-85. You don't see mention of Los Anglese on the road to I-5 along I-580 until you are way beyond Livermore.
IIRC, there is a sign pointing to "I-580 MacArthur Freeway - Stockton/Los Angeles" along I-80 near the MacArthur Maze. Only mention of LA though before I-205 pretty much.
In Santa Clara County, even though LA is mentioned as far north on southbound 101 as Mountain View, at that juncture the cutoff to Route 152 in Gilroy remains an option for those who want a shorter route via I-5. However as noted earlier, 152 does require going through the sluggish two-lane portion from Gilroy to Route 156, while 101 is all dual-carriageway up to the end of the route in East LA.
Quote from: TheStranger on November 24, 2016, 12:09:34 AM
Quote from: Hiroshi66 on November 23, 2016, 08:29:05 PM
However, when we look at US 101 South, the control city is Los Angeles immediately upon leaving San Francisco.
A minor correction:
Los Angeles is first signed from US 101 south at the Route 85 junction in Mountain View. San Jose is pretty much the only control city between Interstate 80 and Route 85 along the Bayshore Freeway southbound.
Quote from: Hiroshi66By the way, is it just me, or has CalTrans removed Bakersfield as a control city from most highways in the LA area?
That is correct. I have always presumed that was because when the West Side Freeway wasn't finished yet (into the 1970s), the Golden State Freeway route to Bakersfield was the next logical destination, but once the West Side portion of I-5 was constructed, Sacramento became preferred as the one numbered route heading out towards Grapevine from LA is the one that goes to the state capital.
Dang I had no idea that Universal City had the Hollywood freeway where US-101 says Sacramento.
Quote from: Hiroshi66 on November 24, 2016, 11:11:08 AM
(Then again, I can't think of a better control city for CA 170 NB. At least they didn't do what they do on I-605 and just put "THRU TRAFFIC" as a control city. LOL!
They could have also put 'Other Valley Cities (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Christopher+Columbus+Transcontinental+Hwy,+Whitewater,+CA+92282/@33.9224467,-116.6823528,3a,75y,96.74h,89.53t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s_SBdBQ5DFtPyfoQa9JG_-g!2e0!4m6!1m3!3m2!1s0x80daf43543dfd785:0x166ce7cda7235031!2sIndio,+CA!3m1!1s0x80db3dec5c58021d:0xebcb22c79c0bd44a)' lol.
Quote from: Exit58 on November 26, 2016, 01:37:35 AM
They could have also put 'Other Valley Cities (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Christopher+Columbus+Transcontinental+Hwy,+Whitewater,+CA+92282/@33.9224467,-116.6823528,3a,75y,96.74h,89.53t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s_SBdBQ5DFtPyfoQa9JG_-g!2e0!4m6!1m3!3m2!1s0x80daf43543dfd785:0x166ce7cda7235031!2sIndio,+CA!3m1!1s0x80db3dec5c58021d:0xebcb22c79c0bd44a)' lol.
LOL! I always laugh when I see that sign. Or, they could use the 241's control city of "South County" and change it to "North Valley" on all 170 NB signs. LOL!
Yes, I have seen those Sacramento signs on US 101 NB onramps in the Echo Park area, as well as around Universal City! It would only work until the CA 170 interchange, though, since that's the easiest/shortest connection between I-5 and US 101. Actually, motorists could technically use I-405, as well, which has an official control city of Sacramento heading northbound, as well. After that, though, there is no viable link between I-5 and US 101 until Ventura and CA 126 - but that's much longer of a drive than CA 170 or even I-405!
Interestingly enough, CA 134 EB also uses Ventura as a control city pretty much from its start in Pasadena.
With a population of 220k, Santa Clarita should be the NB control city on the 5, 405, 170, and 210.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on November 26, 2016, 12:35:16 PM
With a population of 220k, Santa Clarita should be the NB control city on the 5, 405, 170, and 210.
I'm still upset with the removal of San Fernando on the 210. Sure, it's small, but it basically sits at the nexus of 5/118/210/405 and does mark the point very well.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on November 26, 2016, 12:35:16 PM
With a population of 220k, Santa Clarita should be the NB control city on the 5, 405, 170, and 210.
Yes! I couldn't agree more with this. It would have a similar function that Ventura has as a control city on US 101. Sacramento can be listed as a control city only after passing the Santa Clarita area.
Plus, there is a lot of traffic heading between the Santa Clarita Valley and the Los Angeles area in both directions, so it would only make sense.
Quote from: mrsman on November 27, 2016, 08:54:09 AM
I'm still upset with the removal of San Fernando on the 210. Sure, it's small, but it basically sits at the nexus of 5/118/210/405 and does mark the point very well.
Once it gets to Pasadena, I would sign it with dual control cities - one local and one long distance, especially when the freeway ends there. San Fernando or Santa Clarita and Sacramento would be a good pairing. It'll give both locals and travelers a sense of direction instead of mass confusion: "I don't want Sacramento! I'm just trying to get to the other side of the valley" (that happened when I told someone to take 210 West). For local SR Freeways and 3di Interstates this makes sense. For example, San Bernardino/Indio would be a good pick for EB 210.
101 though, being a 'long distance' route to not only San Francisco but Oregon and Washington, should be given a distant control city similar to NB 5 getting a control city of Sacramento right after entering Los Angeles. Dual control cities might not be out of the question, but replacing San Francisco from LA to Ventura with Ventura seems odd. Ventura is not a long distance city, and as this is a 2di US Highway that runs inter-state. Seems natural to give it a large city like SF.
Quote from: Exit58 on November 29, 2016, 12:57:55 PM
Quote from: mrsman on November 27, 2016, 08:54:09 AM
I'm still upset with the removal of San Fernando on the 210. Sure, it's small, but it basically sits at the nexus of 5/118/210/405 and does mark the point very well.
Once it gets to Pasadena, I would sign it with dual control cities - one local and one long distance, especially when the freeway ends there. San Fernando or Santa Clarita and Sacramento would be a good pairing.
I thought Caltrans was following the AASHTO discouragement of multiple control cities.
Also, AASHTO sets the control cities for 2di interstates. So I-5's are set. Santa Ana just happens to be one of those cities. Santa Clarita hasn't even existed that long as a city.
Personally, I think I-5 NB should carry the control cities for 99 until the split occurs, which would be Bakersfield.
Quote from: coatimundi on November 29, 2016, 01:15:22 PM
I thought Caltrans was following the AASHTO discouragement of multiple control cities.
Also, AASHTO sets the control cities for 2di interstates. So I-5's are set. Santa Ana just happens to be one of those cities. Santa Clarita hasn't even existed that long as a city.
Personally, I think I-5 NB should carry the control cities for 99 until the split occurs, which would be Bakersfield.
They probably are following AASHTO, but at the same time California and Caltrans always do their own thing.
I know AASHTO sets the control cities for 2dis but I was just using it as an example. :) I-5 used to be signed with Bakersfield due to it being part of the Golden State Highway, however AASHTO required it to be changed to Sacramento at some point.
If AASHTO was so on the ball. SR-210 would be I-210 and then we could have fun with control cities beginning east of Berdoo!
Rick
Quote from: Exit58 on November 29, 2016, 12:57:55 PM
Dual control cities might not be out of the question, but replacing San Francisco from LA to Ventura with Ventura seems odd. Ventura is not a long distance city, and as this is a 2di US Highway that runs inter-state. Seems natural to give it a large city like SF.
I don't think San Francisco has ever been used as a control city in Los Angeles for 101.
I think another factor in Ventura being the northbound control is that the freeway portion ends a little bit west of town.
Quote from: nexus73 on November 29, 2016, 08:17:19 PM
If AASHTO was so on the ball. SR-210 would be I-210 and then we could have fun with control cities beginning east of Berdoo!
Rick
I have this strange feeling that the old Crosstown Freeway (old SR 30, modern SR 210 from I-215 to I-10) is a large reason why the road hasn't gotten its Interstate destination yet. It's very narrow and I do not believe the shoulders are up to Interstate standards (could be wrong, please correct me). It also has to do with the fact that the old I-210 routing from Glendora to Pomona is still chargeable Interstate and will either need a new number (luckily X10 digits are still available) or will have to be removed from the chargeable system.
In the mean time, SR 210 green out keeps falling off and exposing I-210 shields and Caltrans hasn't made an effort to remedy the situation. Gives a nice glimpse of the blue shields that will be coming soon. (I hope)
Quote from: Exit58 on November 29, 2016, 12:57:55 PM
101 though, being a 'long distance' route to not only San Francisco but Oregon and Washington, should be given a distant control city similar to NB 5 getting a control city of Sacramento right after entering Los Angeles. Dual control cities might not be out of the question, but replacing San Francisco from LA to Ventura with Ventura seems odd. Ventura is not a long distance city, and as this is a 2di US Highway that runs inter-state. Seems natural to give it a large city like SF.
Yes, that was exactly my thinking and the reason why I created this post. It just seemed odd to me that San Francisco wasn't signed
anywhere in the Los Angeles area, even though (as mentioned elsewhere above) there are lone signs in the LA area (before the CA 170 split) listing Sacramento as a control city!
Speaking of which, I remember from my childhood drives in the early 1990s to the Bay Area that San Francisco was first given as a control city on US 101 at the CA 33 interchange in Ventura. Before that, including at the CA 126 interchange before Ventura, Ventura was still given as a control city. I seem to remember that well because the US 101 shield at the CA 33 interchange was one of the old fashioned clear ones (as opposed to the white backgrounds) and I clearly remember that "clear shield" being used on the first sign that listed San Francisco as a control city. It is no longer there and has since been replaced.
Now, however, US 101 lists "San Francisco" as a control city all the way back from the 126 interchange. I could have sworn that used to be Ventura before. Or was I not paying attention to it well enough as a kid? LOL. :bigass:
Quote from: Hiroshi66 on November 30, 2016, 12:14:02 PM
Quote from: Exit58 on November 29, 2016, 12:57:55 PM
101 though, being a 'long distance' route to not only San Francisco but Oregon and Washington, should be given a distant control city similar to NB 5 getting a control city of Sacramento right after entering Los Angeles. Dual control cities might not be out of the question, but replacing San Francisco from LA to Ventura with Ventura seems odd. Ventura is not a long distance city, and as this is a 2di US Highway that runs inter-state. Seems natural to give it a large city like SF.
Yes, that was exactly my thinking and the reason why I created this post. It just seemed odd to me that San Francisco wasn't signed anywhere in the Los Angeles area, even though (as mentioned elsewhere above) there are lone signs in the LA area (before the CA 170 split) listing Sacramento as a control city!
Speaking of which, I remember from my childhood drives in the early 1990s to the Bay Area that San Francisco was first given as a control city on US 101 at the CA 33 interchange in Ventura. Before that, including at the CA 126 interchange before Ventura, Ventura was still given as a control city. I seem to remember that well because the US 101 shield at the CA 33 interchange was one of the old fashioned clear ones (as opposed to the white backgrounds) and I clearly remember that "clear shield" being used on the first sign that listed San Francisco as a control city. It is no longer there and has since been replaced.
Now, however, US 101 lists "San Francisco" as a control city all the way back from the 126 interchange. I could have sworn that used to be Ventura before. Or was I not paying attention to it well enough as a kid? LOL. :bigass:
I think, as was mentioned by other people, in the early days of LA freeways US 99 was signed to Bakersfield and US 101 was signed to Ventura. Both are relatively local and are one county over. When I-5 started, it was first jointly signed with US 99, so Bakersfield was still appropriate. Then, US 99 was removed from the signs after the 1964 renumbering and Bakersfield still remained on the signs. Then, it was decided that since I-5 did not go to Bakersfiled even though the roadway led to CA-99, Bakersfield would be removed in favor of Sacramento. But none of this had any effect on US 101. US 101 was always signed to Ventura and continued going to Ventura through all this time. Just because the other road was changed from Bakersfield to Sacramento does not mean that Ventura should be replaced in favor of San Francisco.
If a road is the road to City X, there is no reason why the control city should change just because the road's designation changes. In that vein, I think it was a mistake to remove Bakersfield from LA area signs on 405, 5 and 170. I-15 should absolutely be signed to Los Angeles from the LV area (and not San Bernardino) as it is more important. [The older signs were for L.A. and the signs in NV are as well, the mentality that we should change the control to SB just beacuse I-15 doesn't reach LA is ludicrous, this is the road to LA.] CA 57 north @ I-10 should be signed for Pasadena (Pasadena was the control when this was I-210).
Quote from: mrsman on December 03, 2016, 10:14:25 PM
I think it was a mistake to remove Bakersfield from LA area signs on 405, 5 and 170.
I-15 should absolutely be signed to Los Angeles from the LV area (and not San Bernardino) as it is more important.
Aren't you contradicting yourself here? Sacramento is a larger city than Bakersfield, the Sacramento metro is three times as large, and it is the state capital. I'd say that makes Sacramento "more important."
Quote from: DTComposer on December 03, 2016, 11:07:23 PM
Quote from: mrsman on December 03, 2016, 10:14:25 PM
I think it was a mistake to remove Bakersfield from LA area signs on 405, 5 and 170.
I-15 should absolutely be signed to Los Angeles from the LV area (and not San Bernardino) as it is more important.
Aren't you contradicting yourself here? Sacramento is a larger city than Bakersfield, the Sacramento metro is three times as large, and it is the state capital. I'd say that makes Sacramento "more important."
My point was more aimed at keeping the original control cities from the original signs, unless there is significant justification.
The original control city north of LA was Bakersfield. It still belongs there as it is a sizable city that you would reach in that direction. The road (GS Freeway) still gets you there, even if the number (I-5) does not. Changing the route number doesn't change where the road goes. This road goes to Bakersfield. No other road out of LA has a control city as far as Sacramento--- Ventura, San Bernardino, Santa Ana. In this context, Bakersfield fits better and it was the original control.
The original control along the road that is now I-15 had Los Angeles as its control for a very long time. This is due largely to the fact that part of the road was part of US 66 that did in fact get to LA. Changing the route number doesn't change where the road goes. This road goes to Los Angeles. Unlike the first situation of roads in Metro LA with local control cities, the roads outside of Metro LA will have control cities that are far away leading to LA. How far is LA the control city along US 101, I-5, and I-10? In many cases hundreds of miles. People along I-15 from the NV border are being drawn 100's of miles to LA, not to San Bernardino.
Yes, it may seem a little perplexing to support local controls in one context and far controls in another, but I think it relates to the sense that LA is a huge control city "magnet." In LA's sphere, the control will be to the adjoining county. Beyond LA's sphere, LA will be the major control unless you are in the sphere of another great city. So along the Central Coast, San Jouaquin Valley, and Mojave Desert -- the controls should be only major cities: LA, SF, Sac, Las Vegas.
I really think it's more to do with long-distance versus regional traffic: interstates were intended to handle the former and, thus, the control cities are generally geared toward that.
For I-15, I think it would be more appropriate to use Barstow in Las Vegas because that's what's used in California. Failing that, San Bernardino. Reason being that control cities on interstates not only take regional prominence into consideration, but also major junctions. That's why, on Interstate 55 in Louisiana, you have Hammond as a control city even though Jackson, MS would be more appropriate from a significance perspective. Same reason Lake City is an I-10 control city in Florida. San Bernardino is a county seat, a regional center for the Inland, and is the control city on I-10, which makes a big difference. But, conversely, Barstow is used on I-40 within California, so it makes sense.
I do wish the surrounding states would get on board with the control cities. Arizona's use of Los Angeles for I-40 is a bit much.
^ And if you go by the AASHTO control cities list, I believe I-15 would be signed Las Vegas - Barstow - Los Angeles.
Quote from: mrsman on December 04, 2016, 01:25:14 AM
My point was more aimed at keeping the original control cities from the original signs, unless there is significant justification.
Point taken. I can also see it as the difference between controls into a metro area as opposed to leaving a metro area.
Quote from: mrsman on December 04, 2016, 01:25:14 AM
The original control city north of LA was Bakersfield. It still belongs there as it is a sizable city that you would reach in that direction. The road (GS Freeway) still gets you there, even if the number (I-5) does not. Changing the route number doesn't change where the road goes. This road goes to Bakersfield.
Point also taken, although if I want to be completely pedantic...
Quote from: mrsman on December 04, 2016, 01:25:14 AM
...the road was part of US 66 that did in fact get to LA. Changing the route number doesn't change where the road goes. This road goes to Los Angeles.
...the road did not go to L.A. - it went to San Bernardino. You had to turn off of Cajon Boulevard/Mt. Vernon/etc. onto Foothill Boulevard to get to L.A. (and onto Figueroa, Sunset, Santa Monica, etc). So the road changed, even though the route number didn't.
All of this, however, reinforces my opinion that multiple controls are necessary on Interstate routes. IMO, I-5 north out of downtown L.A. should be Santa Clarita/Sacramento or Bakersfield/Sacramento, and I-5 south out of downtown should be Santa Ana/San Diego or Anaheim/San Diego.
I'm amazed that San Jose is not listed as the control city for North US-101 in Los Angeles because San Jose for the past 20 years have been mentioned as an economic powerhouse for Northern California and the largest city in the Bay Area.
However San Jose mentions LA for southbound 101. I'm amazed that there is no consistent way to write control cities for US-101 in California in Comparison to I-5.
For I-5 in Sacramento the southbound lanes have the control city of Los Angeles. Also for I-5 north once you pass I-10 the city of Sacramento appears as the control city in Los Angeles.
Quote from: bing101 on December 05, 2016, 04:26:40 PM
I'm amazed that San Jose is not listed as the control city for North US-101 in Los Angeles because San Jose for the past 20 years have been mentioned as an economic powerhouse for Northern California and the largest city in the Bay Area.
While that may be true, San Francisco is more well known and is the more "glamorous" destination. There's a reason why the region is known as the San Francisco Bay Area. I personally, don't have a problem with San Francisco being the control city for US 101 north of Los Angeles.
Quote from: myosh_tino on December 05, 2016, 06:02:00 PM
Quote from: bing101 on December 05, 2016, 04:26:40 PM
I'm amazed that San Jose is not listed as the control city for North US-101 in Los Angeles because San Jose for the past 20 years have been mentioned as an economic powerhouse for Northern California and the largest city in the Bay Area.
While that may be true, San Francisco is more well known and is the more "glamorous" destination. There's a reason why the region is known as the San Francisco Bay Area. I personally, don't have a problem with San Francisco being the control city for US 101 north of Los Angeles.
In spite of being smaller in population, San Francisco is still the principal city of the Bay Area. Aside from maybe a few civic leaders in San Jose, no one is going to argue with that. If you asked people from outside the state to point out, on a map of California, the two cities, I would really be surprised if more than a couple could correctly point to San Jose. Meanwhile, most people seem to have at least a vague idea of where San Francisco is.
San Jose is BIGGER than San Fran? :wow: Add me to the list of the many people that did not know that.
Quote from: compdude787 on December 06, 2016, 12:19:46 AM
San Jose is BIGGER than San Fran? :wow: Add me to the list of the many people that did not know that.
BUT, you have to remember in terms of land area San Jose is several times larger than San Francisco. San Francisco has 864,816 people over 46.87 square miles of land on the 2015 census while San Jose has 1,026,908 spread out over 179.97 square miles. That means San Jose has a population density of 5,700 per square mile while San Francisco is at 18,451. Basically that makes San Francisco the mostly densely populated major city on the West Coast by a large margin. Sure makes it easier to understand why so many people fought the freeway movement when in terms of people living on top of each other it has a lot in common with New York.
Quote from: compdude787 on December 06, 2016, 12:19:46 AM
San Jose is BIGGER than San Fran? :wow: Add me to the list of the many people that did not know that.
And by quite a bit.
LA, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco, Fresno, Sacramento, Long Beach, Oakland, Bakersfield, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Riverside, Stockton, Chula Vista
That's a list, in order, of California cities over 250,000 in population. Fresno tends to surprise people, even within California.
But Max is totally right: density really dictates the feel of a city more than anything. Realize that Boston, MA has less population than El Paso, TX. However, if you ever have the misfortune of visiting El Paso, then you'll quickly realize that it is no Boston.
Quote from: coatimundi on December 06, 2016, 12:52:06 AM
And by quite a bit.
LA, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco, Fresno, Sacramento, Long Beach, Oakland, Bakersfield, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Riverside, Stockton, Chula Vista
That's a list, in order, of California cities over 250,000 in population. Fresno tends to surprise people, even within California.
Irvine is also on that list (like Chula Vista, they have surpassed 250K since the 2010 Census).
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 06, 2016, 12:31:43 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on December 06, 2016, 12:19:46 AM
San Jose is BIGGER than San Fran? :wow: Add me to the list of the many people that did not know that.
BUT, you have to remember in terms of land area San Jose is several times larger than San Francisco. San Francisco has 864,816 people over 46.87 square miles of land on the 2015 census while San Jose has 1,026,908 spread out over 179.97 square miles. That means San Jose has a population density of 5,700 per square mile while San Francisco is at 18,451.
It should be noted that about 50 of those square miles are rural/undeveloped - wetlands on the Bay and territory in the mountains, so the actual density is closer to 7,900 per square mile - still nothing compared to SF.
It should also be noted that the official density of 5,700 per square mile places it fifth among the ten largest cities - not as dense New York/Chicago/Los Angeles/Philadelphia, but more dense than Houston/Phoenix/San Antonio/San Diego/Dallas.
All this said, San Francisco (which itself will probably pass a million people in the next ten years) is the economic, social/cultural and historical heart of the Bay Area and should absolutely be listed as a control city over San Jose.
Quote from: DTComposer on December 06, 2016, 06:49:26 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on December 06, 2016, 12:52:06 AM
And by quite a bit.
LA, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco, Fresno, Sacramento, Long Beach, Oakland, Bakersfield, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Riverside, Stockton, Chula Vista
That's a list, in order, of California cities over 250,000 in population. Fresno tends to surprise people, even within California.
Irvine is also on that list (like Chula Vista, they have surpassed 250K since the 2010 Census).
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 06, 2016, 12:31:43 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on December 06, 2016, 12:19:46 AM
San Jose is BIGGER than San Fran? :wow: Add me to the list of the many people that did not know that.
BUT, you have to remember in terms of land area San Jose is several times larger than San Francisco. San Francisco has 864,816 people over 46.87 square miles of land on the 2015 census while San Jose has 1,026,908 spread out over 179.97 square miles. That means San Jose has a population density of 5,700 per square mile while San Francisco is at 18,451.
It should be noted that about 50 of those square miles are rural/undeveloped - wetlands on the Bay and territory in the mountains, so the actual density is closer to 7,900 per square mile - still nothing compared to SF.
It should also be noted that the official density of 5,700 per square mile places it fifth among the ten largest cities - not as dense New York/Chicago/Los Angeles/Philadelphia, but more dense than Houston/Phoenix/San Antonio/San Diego/Dallas.
All this said, San Francisco (which itself will probably pass a million people in the next ten years) is the economic, social/cultural and historical heart of the Bay Area and should absolutely be listed as a control city over San Jose.
I noticed on the local news here in the bay area the reporters here say "Oakland is the arts and culture section of the Bay Area" and this is coming out as soon as the Oakland Police and Oakland Fire Crews are digging for bodies at the warehouse on fire. I didn't know that even though I used to live in the Bay Area. Growing up there I always thought San Francisco was the cultural center of the Bay Area and back then the artists in the 1990's lived in warehouses but they got demolished as soon as AT&T park came to that district of San Francisco near the North end of i-280
Quote from: bing101 on December 07, 2016, 09:39:00 AM
I noticed on the local news here in the bay area the reporters here say "Oakland is the arts and culture section of the Bay Area" and this is coming out as soon as the Oakland Police and Oakland Fire Crews are digging for bodies at the warehouse on fire. I didn't know that even though I used to live in the Bay Area. Growing up there I always thought San Francisco was the cultural center of the Bay Area and back then the artists in the 1990's lived in warehouses but they got demolished as soon as AT&T park came to that district of San Francisco near the North end of i-280
Claiming Oakland as the arts/culture center of the Bay Area is subjective at best, and really just media hyperbole to play on this tragic story. As you said, a bunch of visual artists got displaced from SoMa/China Basin as AT&T Park revitalized that neighborhood, and many of them went over to Oakland/Berkeley/Emeryville. That area is a bustling center for independent visual artists and some musicians, and perhaps more so in those genres than SF, but SF remains a significant center for those groups.
When you actually look at arts and culture as a whole, SF rises well above the rest of the Bay Area. SF Symphony, Opera, Ballet all are world-class companies. Oakland and San Jose have respectable regional companies in those areas, but there's no comparison. National tours of live theater play SF, and sometimes SJ, but Oakland doesn't have the facility to bring those shows in. Local professional theater? SF by a long shot (led by A.C.T.) with some strong presence in Berkeley and San Jose - both more so than Oakland. Museums? Again, SJ and Oakland have respectable regional museums, but nothing compared to the DeYoung or the Palace of the Legion of Honor. Live music? Oakland/Berkeley probably have the edge in jazz, but not by much. The major rock tours play the San Jose Arena more often than SF or Oakland (but this will change once the new arena in SF is built).
TL;DR: Oakland is a bustling center for independent visual artists and musicians, but can't hold a candle to SF as the overall arts and culture center of the Bay Area.
Quote from: Hiroshi66 on November 23, 2016, 10:47:13 PM
Thanks for your reply, Coatimundi! Interesting!
That's a very good point you bring up about Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, Salinas, and San Jose being used (along with San Francisco) as you continue heading up US 101. Now that you mention it, I do recall seeing those used as control cities as you get closer to each of those areas, although, San Francisco is almost always listed alongside them.
Interesting that you bring up I-5. In the LA area, San Francisco is never used as a control city on I-5, even though most motorists prefer I-5 when traveling to the Bay Area. I have seen San Francisco used as a control city on I-5 where CA 99 splits off after the Grapevine, though, but never in the LA area. In fact, I can't think of a single instance on any interstate or highway in LA where San Francisco is used as a control city (Sacramento is for I-5, and Ventura for US 101) although I do think LA is used as a control city on US 101 in the Bay Area in quite a few places.
I wonder if it's because LA, being a larger city, is seen as a more 'principal' destination and is thus given top billing on US 101 even as far away as the Bay Area, while more local destinations are touted on the opposite journey north?
One reason not to use San Francisco as a control city on ANY sign in the LA area is that, in effect, almost all northbound and many westbound routes will eventually get you to San Francisco. Saying that a given freeway will get you to San Francisco just isn't helpful. It is almost like saying "Not Las Vegas or San Diego" or "Other California Cities". Ventura is WEST and Sacramento is NORTH. Everyone to whom a control city of ANY kind with a destination not in the LA area would be helpful will know this. In fact, from Ventura, CASR-126 might even be a BETTER route (depending upon traffic so far away from that location that you can't even make a reasonable guess at the time that you would have to choose) to San Francisco than US-101, so "San Francisco" would be either confusing or misleading or, at best, unhelpful. US-101 is, however, the definitive route to Santa Barbara then San Luis Obispo then Salinas then San Jose THEN San Francisco.
Quote from: michravera on December 07, 2016, 06:16:08 PM
Quote from: Hiroshi66 on November 23, 2016, 10:47:13 PM
Thanks for your reply, Coatimundi! Interesting!
That's a very good point you bring up about Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, Salinas, and San Jose being used (along with San Francisco) as you continue heading up US 101. Now that you mention it, I do recall seeing those used as control cities as you get closer to each of those areas, although, San Francisco is almost always listed alongside them.
Interesting that you bring up I-5. In the LA area, San Francisco is never used as a control city on I-5, even though most motorists prefer I-5 when traveling to the Bay Area. I have seen San Francisco used as a control city on I-5 where CA 99 splits off after the Grapevine, though, but never in the LA area. In fact, I can't think of a single instance on any interstate or highway in LA where San Francisco is used as a control city (Sacramento is for I-5, and Ventura for US 101) although I do think LA is used as a control city on US 101 in the Bay Area in quite a few places.
I wonder if it's because LA, being a larger city, is seen as a more 'principal' destination and is thus given top billing on US 101 even as far away as the Bay Area, while more local destinations are touted on the opposite journey north?
One reason not to use San Francisco as a control city on ANY sign in the LA area is that, in effect, almost all northbound and many westbound routes will eventually get you to San Francisco. Saying that a given freeway will get you to San Francisco just isn't helpful. It is almost like saying "Not Las Vegas or San Diego" or "Other California Cities". Ventura is WEST and Sacramento is NORTH. Everyone to whom a control city of ANY kind with a destination not in the LA area would be helpful will know this. In fact, from Ventura, CASR-126 might even be a BETTER route (depending upon traffic so far away from that location that you can't even make a reasonable guess at the time that you would have to choose) to San Francisco than US-101, so "San Francisco" would be either confusing or misleading or, at best, unhelpful. US-101 is, however, the definitive route to Santa Barbara then San Luis Obispo then Salinas then San Jose THEN San Francisco.
Your point is well-taken! Thank you. I guess that explains why US 101 has started adopting the format of 2 control cities through the Central Coast - the top one being the next major city and the bottom one being San Francisco. Kill two birds with one stone, I suppose.
It is definitely preferable to the bizarre "THRU TRAFFIC" control city that exists on I-605 NB (and SB, for that matter). I'll never understand that. I-605 NB should have "Pasadena" as a control city, and as for I-605 SB, perhaps "Huntington Beach" might be a good one.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 06, 2016, 12:31:43 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on December 06, 2016, 12:19:46 AM
San Jose is BIGGER than San Fran? :wow: Add me to the list of the many people that did not know that.
BUT, you have to remember in terms of land area San Jose is several times larger than San Francisco. San Francisco has 864,816 people over 46.87 square miles of land on the 2015 census while San Jose has 1,026,908 spread out over 179.97 square miles. That means San Jose has a population density of 5,700 per square mile while San Francisco is at 18,451. Basically that makes San Francisco the mostly densely populated major city on the West Coast by a large margin. Sure makes it easier to understand why so many people fought the freeway movement when in terms of people living on top of each other it has a lot in common with New York.
A very apt description. When describing San Fran to people here on the east coast, I mentioned that it was like NYC, except with more hills and better weather. But seriously, the core of the downtown has a feel like Manhattan, and many neighborhoods on the west side have a feel like Brooklyn. SF is so much more dense than many other CA cities. More transit use as well.
Speaking of San Francisco, there is a street there right by the water called "Great Highway." I'm curious about the origin of this street name - was it the original routing of CA 1 or something? It's the street right by the water where all of SF's major streets terminate.
Quote from: Hiroshi66 on December 10, 2016, 08:56:26 AM
Speaking of San Francisco, there is a street there right by the water called "Great Highway." I'm curious about the origin of this street name - was it the original routing of CA 1 or something? It's the street right by the water where all of SF's major streets terminate.
Doesn't look like it was ever part of CA 1 or CA 5, had a flip through maps back to 1938 and 5 was always on Skyline while 1 dipped inland. Cahighways has both located in the same place back in 1934:
http://www.cahighways.org/001-008.html
That's interesting. This street eventually breaks off into Skyline Blvd south of the city, so I wonder if CA 5 continued on Great Highway after Skyline ended. The naming of that street always surprised me.
Quote from: Hiroshi66 on December 10, 2016, 09:25:42 AM
That's interesting. This street eventually breaks off into Skyline Blvd south of the city, so I wonder if CA 5 continued on Great Highway after Skyline ended. The naming of that street always surprised me.
All the maps show it looping back to 1 on Sloat. I'm not as familiar with the Bay area as others on this board but isn't Great Highway still have issues with sand closures?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 10, 2016, 09:40:36 AM
Quote from: Hiroshi66 on December 10, 2016, 09:25:42 AM
That's interesting. This street eventually breaks off into Skyline Blvd south of the city, so I wonder if CA 5 continued on Great Highway after Skyline ended. The naming of that street always surprised me.
All the maps show it looping back to 1 on Sloat. I'm not as familiar with the Bay area as others on this board but isn't Great Highway still have issues with sand closures?
Absolutely. The city makes an annual event of closing Great Highway in Ocean Beach so that they can try to push the dunes back over the curb. It closes after big storms too.
SR 5 started at SR 1 and went west on Sloat to reach Skyline. California really doesn't seem to like ending state routes at non-numbered routes, so it would have to curve back to 1 on either Geary or Lincoln, and I don't see that having ever happened the way those streets look today. That also would not have provided any benefit to the state highway system.
Quote from: Hiroshi66 on December 09, 2016, 10:58:24 AM
It is definitely preferable to the bizarre "THRU TRAFFIC" control city that exists on I-605 NB (and SB, for that matter). I'll never understand that. I-605 NB should have "Pasadena" as a control city, and as for I-605 SB, perhaps "Huntington Beach" might be a good one.
Actually, Pasadena access from NB I-605 requires a westerly turn on I-210 at rather an oblique angle; a more appropriate city would be one lying east of the 210/605 junction (Azusa would be the most likely candidate). And, at the other end of 605, Huntington Beach is a bit of a stretch; one needs to traverse other major cities (Garden Grove, et. al.) to get to that city. I think Caltrans simply decided that I-605 didn't directly serve any major cities -- at least any cited in the control city compendium -- so they simply gave up (why they didn't consider Long Beach as a southern terminus reference -- given its proximity to that terminus -- is perplexing). IMHO, north of I-10 the pull-through BGS should read "I-605 TO I-210" (also to be reflected on the I-10 ramps to NB I-605); similarly, I-605 south of CA 91 would read "I-605 TO I-405". In this way, the crossing routes at the termini, well-known as they are, would provide any required reference.
Quote from: sparker on December 12, 2016, 06:45:23 AM
Quote from: Hiroshi66 on December 09, 2016, 10:58:24 AM
It is definitely preferable to the bizarre "THRU TRAFFIC" control city that exists on I-605 NB (and SB, for that matter). I'll never understand that. I-605 NB should have "Pasadena" as a control city, and as for I-605 SB, perhaps "Huntington Beach" might be a good one.
Actually, Pasadena access from NB I-605 requires a westerly turn on I-210 at rather an oblique angle; a more appropriate city would be one lying east of the 210/605 junction (Azusa would be the most likely candidate). And, at the other end of 605, Huntington Beach is a bit of a stretch; one needs to traverse other major cities (Garden Grove, et. al.) to get to that city. I think Caltrans simply decided that I-605 didn't directly serve any major cities -- at least any cited in the control city compendium -- so they simply gave up (why they didn't consider Long Beach as a southern terminus reference -- given its proximity to that terminus -- is perplexing). IMHO, north of I-10 the pull-through BGS should read "I-605 TO I-210" (also to be reflected on the I-10 ramps to NB I-605); similarly, I-605 south of CA 91 would read "I-605 TO I-405". In this way, the crossing routes at the termini, well-known as they are, would provide any required reference.
I think you are correct that the lack of control cities on 605 is because it starts at ends at very low population suburbs. Yet, IMO a small city is better than no city at all.
The northern end of 605 is Irwindale - which nobody has ever heard of*. Nearby is Azusa or Duarte either of which would be fine control cities. I personally prefer Duarte because it serves a major desination (City of HOpe HOspital).
I feel that Seal Beach would be a good southern control city. The problem with using Long Beach is that 605 is too far from the key destinations in Long Beach (Downtown, Harbor, Queen Mary) that we don't want traffic to those destinations to take 605 and then clog up surface streets. If you are on 10, 60, or 91 coming from the east and you see Long Beach, you will take that freeway south. But it would generally be better if that traffic stayed on their freeway and take the 710 instead. (From the 210, you could take 605 and then take one of the east-west freeways to the 710, but we still shouldn't put Long Beach as a control because many people may not make the next transfer that they need to.)
* About 30 years ago there was a plan to build a stadium for the Raiders there. If that were built, Irwindale would be an appropriate control city because it serves a major destination.
Quote from: mrsman on December 12, 2016, 07:50:29 AM
Quote from: sparker on December 12, 2016, 06:45:23 AM
Quote from: Hiroshi66 on December 09, 2016, 10:58:24 AM
It is definitely preferable to the bizarre "THRU TRAFFIC" control city that exists on I-605 NB (and SB, for that matter). I'll never understand that. I-605 NB should have "Pasadena" as a control city, and as for I-605 SB, perhaps "Huntington Beach" might be a good one.
Actually, Pasadena access from NB I-605 requires a westerly turn on I-210 at rather an oblique angle; a more appropriate city would be one lying east of the 210/605 junction (Azusa would be the most likely candidate). And, at the other end of 605, Huntington Beach is a bit of a stretch; one needs to traverse other major cities (Garden Grove, et. al.) to get to that city. I think Caltrans simply decided that I-605 didn't directly serve any major cities -- at least any cited in the control city compendium -- so they simply gave up (why they didn't consider Long Beach as a southern terminus reference -- given its proximity to that terminus -- is perplexing). IMHO, north of I-10 the pull-through BGS should read "I-605 TO I-210" (also to be reflected on the I-10 ramps to NB I-605); similarly, I-605 south of CA 91 would read "I-605 TO I-405". In this way, the crossing routes at the termini, well-known as they are, would provide any required reference.
I think you are correct that the lack of control cities on 605 is because it starts at ends at very low population suburbs. Yet, IMO a small city is better than no city at all.
The northern end of 605 is Irwindale - which nobody has ever heard of*. Nearby is Azusa or Duarte either of which would be fine control cities. I personally prefer Duarte because it serves a major desination (City of HOpe HOspital).
I feel that Seal Beach would be a good southern control city. The problem with using Long Beach is that 605 is too far from the key destinations in Long Beach (Downtown, Harbor, Queen Mary) that we don't want traffic to those destinations to take 605 and then clog up surface streets. If you are on 10, 60, or 91 coming from the east and you see Long Beach, you will take that freeway south. But it would generally be better if that traffic stayed on their freeway and take the 710 instead. (From the 210, you could take 605 and then take one of the east-west freeways to the 710, but we still shouldn't put Long Beach as a control because many people may not make the next transfer that they need to.)
* About 30 years ago there was a plan to build a stadium for the Raiders there. If that were built, Irwindale would be an appropriate control city because it serves a major destination.
Point taken about Long Beach -- the central area
is best served by I-710; the only point of interest near the southern terminus is CSULB (which is also the state HQ for the whole CSU system) -- but that in itself isn't enough to warrant a control city. Seal Beach is not bad (if it could be added to
the list!*) -- even if my 1st ex lives there!!! Enough of the inland portion of that town lies along the 405/22 multiplex to make it a legitimate control point.
Al Davis' 1987 Irwindale stadium proposal was nothing if not laughably ridiculous -- carving out an old aggregate pit next to I-210 as a viable NFL stadium (quickly dashed when the local water table was brought up!).
*The control city "list" has, for some reason, always reminded me of the old Monty Python sketch about the king's daughter looking for a husband and consulting the "Book of Princes": "Is he in the book?" -- "Yes -- and in the
foreword!"
Quote from: sparker on December 12, 2016, 02:29:07 PM
the southern terminus is CSULB (which is also the state HQ for the whole CSU system)
I was over there a couple of months ago, and a lot of traffic seems to make that 605 SB to 22 WB jog to get to the campus.
I actually had no idea about that being the HQ. And my wife works for them. Makes sense why they always want to have their meetings down there and they put us into the dark, industrial depths of Orange County.
Quote from: sparker on December 12, 2016, 02:29:07 PM
Seal Beach is not bad (if it could be added to the list!*) -- even if my 1st ex lives there!!! Enough of the inland portion of that town lies along the 405/22 multiplex to make it a legitimate control point.
Seal Beach has such a small population but I guess it's pretty well-known in the region. Certainly better than the location of the rest of that junction, since I would doubt even half of people in LA County know where Los Alamitos is. Then again, it would get some name recognition that way.
Add a zip code in for your ex and it'll make Scott appear, like magic.
Quote from: sparker on December 12, 2016, 02:29:07 PM
Al Davis' 1987 Irwindale stadium proposal was nothing if not laughably ridiculous -- carving out an old aggregate pit next to I-210 as a viable NFL stadium (quickly dashed when the local water table was brought up!).
Irwindale seems to have too many huffy, insular neighboring municipalities for an NFL stadium. I can't imagine that would go over too well with the locals. But maybe that area is a lot different now than it was in '87.
Quote from: coatimundi on December 12, 2016, 05:11:40 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 12, 2016, 02:29:07 PM
the southern terminus is CSULB (which is also the state HQ for the whole CSU system)
I was over there a couple of months ago, and a lot of traffic seems to make that 605 SB to 22 WB jog to get to the campus.
I actually had no idea about that being the HQ. And my wife works for them. Makes sense why they always want to have their meetings down there and they put us into the dark, industrial depths of Orange County.
The CSU headquarters is actually downtown (next to the Catalina ferry terminal), not on campus.
Quote from: sparker on December 12, 2016, 02:29:07 PM
Quote from: mrsman on December 12, 2016, 07:50:29 AM
Quote from: sparker on December 12, 2016, 06:45:23 AM
Quote from: Hiroshi66 on December 09, 2016, 10:58:24 AM
It is definitely preferable to the bizarre "THRU TRAFFIC" control city that exists on I-605 NB (and SB, for that matter). I'll never understand that. I-605 NB should have "Pasadena" as a control city, and as for I-605 SB, perhaps "Huntington Beach" might be a good one.
Actually, Pasadena access from NB I-605 requires a westerly turn on I-210 at rather an oblique angle; a more appropriate city would be one lying east of the 210/605 junction (Azusa would be the most likely candidate). And, at the other end of 605, Huntington Beach is a bit of a stretch; one needs to traverse other major cities (Garden Grove, et. al.) to get to that city. I think Caltrans simply decided that I-605 didn't directly serve any major cities -- at least any cited in the control city compendium -- so they simply gave up (why they didn't consider Long Beach as a southern terminus reference -- given its proximity to that terminus -- is perplexing). IMHO, north of I-10 the pull-through BGS should read "I-605 TO I-210" (also to be reflected on the I-10 ramps to NB I-605); similarly, I-605 south of CA 91 would read "I-605 TO I-405". In this way, the crossing routes at the termini, well-known as they are, would provide any required reference.
I think you are correct that the lack of control cities on 605 is because it starts at ends at very low population suburbs. Yet, IMO a small city is better than no city at all.
The northern end of 605 is Irwindale - which nobody has ever heard of*. Nearby is Azusa or Duarte either of which would be fine control cities. I personally prefer Duarte because it serves a major desination (City of HOpe HOspital).
I feel that Seal Beach would be a good southern control city. The problem with using Long Beach is that 605 is too far from the key destinations in Long Beach (Downtown, Harbor, Queen Mary) that we don't want traffic to those destinations to take 605 and then clog up surface streets. If you are on 10, 60, or 91 coming from the east and you see Long Beach, you will take that freeway south. But it would generally be better if that traffic stayed on their freeway and take the 710 instead. (From the 210, you could take 605 and then take one of the east-west freeways to the 710, but we still shouldn't put Long Beach as a control because many people may not make the next transfer that they need to.)
* About 30 years ago there was a plan to build a stadium for the Raiders there. If that were built, Irwindale would be an appropriate control city because it serves a major destination.
Point taken about Long Beach -- the central area is best served by I-710; the only point of interest near the southern terminus is CSULB (which is also the state HQ for the whole CSU system) -- but that in itself isn't enough to warrant a control city. Seal Beach is not bad (if it could be added to the list!*) -- even if my 1st ex lives there!!! Enough of the inland portion of that town lies along the 405/22 multiplex to make it a legitimate control point.
Al Davis' 1987 Irwindale stadium proposal was nothing if not laughably ridiculous -- carving out an old aggregate pit next to I-210 as a viable NFL stadium (quickly dashed when the local water table was brought up!).
*The control city "list" has, for some reason, always reminded me of the old Monty Python sketch about the king's daughter looking for a husband and consulting the "Book of Princes": "Is he in the book?" -- "Yes -- and in the foreword!"
I think the control city list is fine for long distance roads like 2dis and 2dus routes. It tends to make less sense for more local roads. Since Duarte and Seal Beach are not on the list, the alternative is to basically have no control city at all. And that is not helpful to the driving public.
Let's add the Ultimate Control City on each end of 101. "Olympia" at the 4-Level and "Los Angeles" in Olympia! Once on the route have a mileage sign for the end of the route.
That should help the cause of US 101 tourism!
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on December 14, 2016, 11:11:06 AM
Let's add the Ultimate Control City on each end of 101. "Olympia" at the 4-Level and "Los Angeles" in Olympia! Once on the route have a mileage sign for the end of the route.
That should help the cause of US 101 tourism!
Rick
Not a bad idea. There are other US highways that do something similar. US 50 on both ends has a mileage sign to the other end.
Quote from: nexus73 on December 14, 2016, 11:11:06 AM
Let's add the Ultimate Control City on each end of 101. "Olympia" at the 4-Level and "Los Angeles" in Olympia! Once on the route have a mileage sign for the end of the route.
That should help the cause of US 101 tourism!
Rick
Except for the fact that US 101's southern terminus is actually at the E. Los Angeles (I-5/I-10/CA 60/US 101) interchange rather than the 4-level, that's not a totally bad idea -- if limited to the "novelty" opposite-end-of-route signs seen on US 50, I-10, and I-40. As far as actual overhead-sign control cities, "Downtown L.A" or "L.A. Civic Center" might be appropriate signs for US 101 at its southern end, rather than the simple "Los Angeles" that is there now. Hell, after you cross Indiana Ave. on either CA 60 WB or I-5 NB, you're already in Los Angeles! May as well get a little more specific about intra-city destinations. If a 2-destination sign is to be deployed, something like "L.A. Civic Center" with "Hollywood" underneath might not be too bad, as both are actually traversed by US 101, and the latter is a major tourist destination.
Quote from: sparker on December 15, 2016, 09:00:02 PM
As far as actual overhead-sign control cities, "Downtown L.A" or "L.A. Civic Center" might be appropriate signs for US 101 at its southern end, rather than the simple "Los Angeles" that is there now. Hell, after you cross Indiana Ave. on either CA 60 WB or I-5 NB, you're already in Los Angeles! May as well get a little more specific about intra-city destinations. If a 2-destination sign is to be deployed, something like "L.A. Civic Center" with "Hollywood" underneath might not be too bad, as both are actually traversed by US 101, and the latter is a major tourist destination.
I recall at least one sign at the 5/101 split where "Los Angeles Civic Center" is the control:
https://goo.gl/maps/FDn72yrFHkt
Quote from: TheStranger on December 16, 2016, 04:30:09 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 15, 2016, 09:00:02 PM
As far as actual overhead-sign control cities, "Downtown L.A" or "L.A. Civic Center" might be appropriate signs for US 101 at its southern end, rather than the simple "Los Angeles" that is there now. Hell, after you cross Indiana Ave. on either CA 60 WB or I-5 NB, you're already in Los Angeles! May as well get a little more specific about intra-city destinations. If a 2-destination sign is to be deployed, something like "L.A. Civic Center" with "Hollywood" underneath might not be too bad, as both are actually traversed by US 101, and the latter is a major tourist destination.
I recall at least one sign at the 5/101 split where "Los Angeles Civic Center" is the control:
https://goo.gl/maps/FDn72yrFHkt
It seems like "Civic Center" was a common control for both freeways and surface streets in the 80's. Maybe a product of the urban renewal ideas of the 60's and 70's, where they grouped all the government buildings together (creating a dead zone outside of work hours).
Quote from: coatimundi on December 16, 2016, 05:48:05 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on December 16, 2016, 04:30:09 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 15, 2016, 09:00:02 PM
As far as actual overhead-sign control cities, "Downtown L.A" or "L.A. Civic Center" might be appropriate signs for US 101 at its southern end, rather than the simple "Los Angeles" that is there now. Hell, after you cross Indiana Ave. on either CA 60 WB or I-5 NB, you're already in Los Angeles! May as well get a little more specific about intra-city destinations. If a 2-destination sign is to be deployed, something like "L.A. Civic Center" with "Hollywood" underneath might not be too bad, as both are actually traversed by US 101, and the latter is a major tourist destination.
I recall at least one sign at the 5/101 split where "Los Angeles Civic Center" is the control:
https://goo.gl/maps/FDn72yrFHkt
It seems like "Civic Center" was a common control for both freeways and surface streets in the 80's. Maybe a product of the urban renewal ideas of the 60's and 70's, where they grouped all the government buildings together (creating a dead zone outside of work hours).
Civic Center remains one of US 101's primary controls in SF. The neighborhood of that name has existed in some form since the early 1900s, though the current City Hall is several blocks away from the site of the old structure that collapsed in the 1906 quake. (The old building fronted a short street parallel to Market Street, City Hall Avenue, which was removed before 1920)
Sorry for the late reply everyone. Was getting caught up with grading and end of the semester business. All done! Hoping to get some road trips in this Christmas vacation.
On the subject of "missing" control cities, I have noticed the same thing on CA 118. "Thru Traffic" doesn't appear there, but "WEST" or "EAST" is the control city for most of the route. At most points in the San Fernando Valley (such as when you approach CA 118 from the 405) Simi Valley is listed as a control city, but there is no control city going eastbound. I don't think "Valley Cities" is a very good one to use, but I read somewhere on this forum a while ago that somebody suggested "Pasadena" as a control city for EB 118. It doesn't go anywhere near Pasadena, but it does link to I-210 which is the route to Pasadena. Either that, or maybe San Fernando...
Going WB, I think Moorpark becomes the de-facto control city in Simi Valley but I can't recall any signs to that effect. Ultimately, the terminus is at CA 126 at the Ventura city limits but I could swear there is at least one sign (maybe on CA 126 WB) listing "Saticoy" at the CA 118 exit.
I could have sworn there were more "Civic Center" signs on US 101 SB in the Downtown area but I think they may have been replaced. I'm not sure. I have to pay more attention next time I'm down there.
By the way, I will be heading up to the Bay Area this Christmas and will of course be taking US 101 NB. I'll take notes of all the control cities at major interchanges and share them with you all!
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 10, 2016, 09:20:46 AM
Quote from: Hiroshi66 on December 10, 2016, 08:56:26 AM
Speaking of San Francisco, there is a street there right by the water called "Great Highway." I'm curious about the origin of this street name - was it the original routing of CA 1 or something? It's the street right by the water where all of SF's major streets terminate.
Doesn't look like it was ever part of CA 1 or CA 5, had a flip through maps back to 1938 and 5 was always on Skyline while 1 dipped inland. Cahighways has both located in the same place back in 1934:
http://www.cahighways.org/001-008.html
Sorry for thread bump but found photographic proof that CA 5 followed Sloat west
past Skyline to Great Hwy, from 1939 - http://opensfhistory.org/Display/wnp4.1634.jpg - shows CA 5 heading right at the split.
Also of interest is 19th and Sloat with the backs of CA 1 and CA 5 shields in 1937 - http://opensfhistory.org/Display/wnp26.006.jpg
Quote from: mrsman on December 03, 2016, 10:14:25 PM
I-15 should absolutely be signed to Los Angeles from the LV area (and not San Bernardino) as it is more important. [The older signs were for L.A. and the signs in NV are as well, the mentality that we should change the control to SB just beacuse I-15 doesn't reach LA is ludicrous, this is the road to LA.]
There is a bit of history behind that.
I-15 follows the route of what was then called the
Los Angeles Highway. The Los Angeles Highway passed through Jean and Baker, and terminated at an intersection with US 66 in Barstow. From Barstow, US 66 went southwest and in fact passed through downtown Los Angeles. Hence the name for the Los Angeles Highway, and later the decision to use Los Angeles as the control city for I-15 south.