I recently drove the entirety of the Hollywood Freeway from I-5 to the Four Level Interchange in downtown Los Angeles. The present Hollywood Freeway carries the designations of CA 170, US 101 and a small portion of CA 2. Interesting the State Highway Maps show in great detail when segments of the Hollywood Freeway opened. It appears that US 66 first multiplexed the Hollywood Freeway starting in 1954 when Sunset Boulevard was relinquished from Legislative Route 2 up until when it was truncated to Pasadena in 1964.
https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/05/hollywood-freeway-california-state.html
I went back and made a couple updates after I got some feedback on Facebook regarding the Hollywood Freeway. Someone actually posted a link to the 1963 Goshua Map which showed US 6 routed on Lankershim/LRN 159 and the southern segment of the Hollywood Freeway. I added the previous forum topic about signage showing US 6 at the current split for I-5/CA 170 from several years back.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 31, 2019, 05:57:26 PM
I went back and made a couple updates after I got some feedback on Facebook regarding the Hollywood Freeway. Someone actually posted a link to the 1963 Goshua Map which showed US 6 routed on Lankershim/LRN 159 and the southern segment of the Hollywood Freeway. I added the previous forum topic about signage showing US 6 at the current split for I-5/CA 170 from several years back.
Indeed, US 66 was posted on the Hollywood Freeway from about '53 to '64, when US 66 signage was deleted west of Pasadena (eventually disappearing within the state); the signage extended from the 4-level interchange to the Santa Monica Blvd. exit (which coincidentally marked the western terminus of SSR 2 -- but that route was poorly marked, trailblazer-wise, from US 101). Although the 1963 Gousha maps showed US 6 on both the Hollywood Freeway and LRN 159 up Lankershim Blvd. in the Valley, that routing never saw field signage -- probably because the system renumbering was being devised that year, and posting any changes to US 6 south of Bishop would have been a pointless exercise. What
was interesting is that when the I-5 freeway opened from Van Nuys Blvd. (where it temporarily ended at the beginning of 1963) north to the original Newhall Pass section of the Golden State Freeway (now the truck lanes), US 6 was prominently posted on the reassurance shield assemblies along with I-5 and US 99 shields south as far as the stub-end ramps to what 5 years later would be the northern Hollywood Freeway (CA 170) extension; south of that location the assemblies only referenced I-5 and US 99 -- except for the 1957-opened segment west of Glendale, which still posted US 6 shields (in the larger '53-spec non-state-named white enamel shields with button copy -- I'd give my eye teeth to have one of those today!). Clearly the plan all along was to reroute US 6 over the full length of the Hollywood Freeway -- but the overall '64 renumbering scheme quashed those plans.
Quote from: sparker on May 31, 2019, 06:34:53 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 31, 2019, 05:57:26 PM
I went back and made a couple updates after I got some feedback on Facebook regarding the Hollywood Freeway. Someone actually posted a link to the 1963 Goshua Map which showed US 6 routed on Lankershim/LRN 159 and the southern segment of the Hollywood Freeway. I added the previous forum topic about signage showing US 6 at the current split for I-5/CA 170 from several years back.
Indeed, US 66 was posted on the Hollywood Freeway from about '53 to '64, when US 66 signage was deleted west of Pasadena (eventually disappearing within the state); the signage extended from the 4-level interchange to the Santa Monica Blvd. exit (which coincidentally marked the western terminus of SSR 2 -- but that route was poorly marked, trailblazer-wise, from US 101). Although the 1963 Gousha maps showed US 6 on both the Hollywood Freeway and LRN 159 up Lankershim Blvd. in the Valley, that routing never saw field signage -- probably because the system renumbering was being devised that year, and posting any changes to US 6 south of Bishop would have been a pointless exercise. What was interesting is that when the I-5 freeway opened from Van Nuys Blvd. (where it temporarily ended at the beginning of 1963) north to the original Newhall Pass section of the Golden State Freeway (now the truck lanes), US 6 was prominently posted on the reassurance shield assemblies along with I-5 and US 99 shields south as far as the stub-end ramps to what 5 years later would be the northern Hollywood Freeway (CA 170) extension; south of that location the assemblies only referenced I-5 and US 99 -- except for the 1957-opened segment west of Glendale, which still posted US 6 shields (in the larger '53-spec non-state-named white enamel shields with button copy -- I'd give my eye teeth to have one of those today!). Clearly the plan all along was to reroute US 6 over the full length of the Hollywood Freeway -- but the overall '64 renumbering scheme quashed those plans.
For some reason it didn't occur to me when I was writing the blog that CA 2 didn't multiplex US 66 west of the Hollywood Freeway, it took over the alignment in 1964. What I find interesting about US 6 in reference to the Hollywood Freeway is that it didn't seem like the renumbering was a certainty up until the last minute. It kind of makes me curious what kind of designations would be around today if the renumbering never occurred...US 6 seems like a much more worthy designation than the bland CA 170.
Those button-copy US Route shields go for a mint. Every once in awhile you see one pop up for a small fortune.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 31, 2019, 11:27:46 PM
For some reason it didn't occur to me when I was writing the blog that CA 2 didn't multiplex US 66 west of the Hollywood Freeway, it took over the alignment in 1964.
Route 2's history west of US 101 is interesting - wasn't Santa Monica the original Route 2 already in 1934, then completely supplanted by US 66 from 1936-1964, then restored (notwithstanding the modern relinquishments) afterwards? Probably the longest gap in time for one road to have the same designation as before in California.
This contrasts a lot with how Route 11 was handled between 1936-1964, where literally only 20% of it was not concurrent (the portion north of Route 134 and the portion south of what was US 101A) with a US route of some sort, yet the designation was maintained uninterrupted from 1934 to 1981.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 31, 2019, 11:27:46 PM
What I find interesting about US 6 in reference to the Hollywood Freeway is that it didn't seem like the renumbering was a certainty up until the last minute. It kind of makes me curious what kind of designations would be around today if the renumbering never occurred...US 6 seems like a much more worthy designation than the bland CA 170.
Although only 14 at "point zero" of the renumbering, I always wished I could have been the proverbial "fly on the wall" when the changes were being discussed and finalized -- even though some decisions would have provoked a "WTF -- what
were you thinking!" response. But something tells me that the selection of which US highway to remove from the long 6/395 multiplex might, as Max muses, have come down to a last-minute decision. On one hand, US 6 was by far the longest U.S. highway pre-truncation as well as an iconic ("Grand Army of the Republic") route -- but the chances are that if it had survived the renumbering it still would have been cut back to either the present 101/134/170 interchange in North Hollywood or the 5/14 Newhall Pass interchange. And US 395
still maintained a long multiplex with I-15 from Colton to Hesperia until the latter route's 1968 extension; the Hesperia-Inyokern segment could have been renumbered, along with San Diego-Moreno Valley (Riverside-Colton would have been a CA 91 extension "given"). OTOH, US 6's four multiplexes with other US (and/or Interstate) highways -- including the aborted Hollywood Freeway "never-was" segment -- probably spelled its doom (and Caltrans & its predecessor have never been known for sentimental expression). Unless, as speculated elsewhere, the plan was to eventually surmount the Sierras and teminate US 6 somewhere on CA's central coast, it was in all likelihood simply decided that US 395 was a more vital route to keep under singular designation than US 6.
Quote from: TheStranger on June 01, 2019, 02:04:09 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 31, 2019, 11:27:46 PM
For some reason it didn't occur to me when I was writing the blog that CA 2 didn't multiplex US 66 west of the Hollywood Freeway, it took over the alignment in 1964.
Route 2's history west of US 101 is interesting - wasn't Santa Monica the original Route 2 already in 1934, then completely supplanted by US 66 from 1936-1964, then restored (notwithstanding the modern relinquishments) afterwards? Probably the longest gap in time for one road to have the same designation as before in California.
This contrasts a lot with how Route 11 was handled between 1936-1964, where literally only 20% of it was not concurrent (the portion north of Route 134 and the portion south of what was US 101A) with a US route of some sort, yet the designation was maintained uninterrupted from 1934 to 1981.
Yes, that's correct and I suspect it might be 1935 since the alignment of US 101 in downtown had already jumped which ought have been the instigator for US 66 replacing CA 2 to Santa Monica. I went back and added the 1934 Department of Public Works guide which showed CA 2 ending in Santa Monica.
There is a 1935 Gousha Map (http://cartweb.geography.ua.edu/lizardtech/iserv/calcrgn?cat=North%20America%20and%20United%20States&item=States/California/California1935d.sid&wid=1000&hei=900&props=item(Name,Description),cat(Name,Description)&style=simple/view-dhtml.xsl) that shows in detail the Los Angeles area's routings in the short time between signing of state routes and the US route expansions in the area.
I believe the main map (http://cartweb.geography.ua.edu/lizardtech/iserv/calcrgn?cat=North%20America%20and%20United%20States&item=States/California/California1935b.sid&wid=1000&hei=900&props=item(Name,Description),cat(Name,Description)&style=simple/view-dhtml.xsl) is a rare example showing US 70 fully 100% concurrent with US 60, as was originally specified and apparently changed not long after.
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 01, 2019, 09:17:11 AM
There is a 1935 Gousha Map (http://cartweb.geography.ua.edu/lizardtech/iserv/calcrgn?cat=North%20America%20and%20United%20States&item=States/California/California1935d.sid&wid=1000&hei=900&props=item(Name,Description),cat(Name,Description)&style=simple/view-dhtml.xsl) that shows in detail the Los Angeles area's routings in the short time between signing of state routes and the US route expansions in the area.
I believe the main map (http://cartweb.geography.ua.edu/lizardtech/iserv/calcrgn?cat=North%20America%20and%20United%20States&item=States/California/California1935b.sid&wid=1000&hei=900&props=item(Name,Description),cat(Name,Description)&style=simple/view-dhtml.xsl) is a rare example showing US 70 fully 100% concurrent with US 60, as was originally specified and apparently changed not long after.
That's the interim map I was hoping find regarding 1935. US 101 is shown on Macy on the Goshua Map whereas Macy is shown under State Maintenance on the 1935 Division of Highways Map I posted in the blog. I think it's safe to say that US 66 had been truncates to Broadway and Macy by 1935 based off the evidence presented on this thread. i
the following changes occurred between Aug 1934 and Oct 1935 (per pg. 21 at http://libraryarchives.metro.net/DPGTL/Californiahighways/chpw_1935_oct.pdf)
US 66 extended to Santa Monica - article suggests the endpoint was Sunset Blvd prior
US 70 concurrent with US 60 everywhere
US 299, US 395 and US 399 born
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 01, 2019, 09:50:55 PM
the following changes occurred between Aug 1934 and Oct 1935 (per pg. 21 at http://libraryarchives.metro.net/DPGTL/Californiahighways/chpw_1935_oct.pdf)
US 66 extended to Santa Monica - article suggests the endpoint was Sunset Blvd prior
US 70 concurrent with US 60 everywhere
US 299, US 395 and US 399 born
That's cool as all hell to finally see something finally showing a date of all the movements in the US Routes and new additions. Seems my suspicion about US 66 being truncates first from 7th Street is affirmed.
^^^^^^^^^
Pretty much everyone involved -- the Division of Highways, the City of Los Angeles, downtown merchants, and in all likelihood through traffic drivers (especially commercial) wanted US 101 off 7th Street A.S.A.P., which is why it was moved to the Boyle/Pleasant/Macy/Sunset routing by 1933 or so. Even though the 2-lane Pleasant Ave. was (technically) lower capacity than the downtown streets it replaced, it still was heads & above the slog along 7th and Vermont.
Quote from: sparker on June 01, 2019, 02:30:09 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 31, 2019, 11:27:46 PM
What I find interesting about US 6 in reference to the Hollywood Freeway is that it didn't seem like the renumbering was a certainty up until the last minute. It kind of makes me curious what kind of designations would be around today if the renumbering never occurred...US 6 seems like a much more worthy designation than the bland CA 170.
Although only 14 at "point zero" of the renumbering, I always wished I could have been the proverbial "fly on the wall" when the changes were being discussed and finalized -- even though some decisions would have provoked a "WTF -- what were you thinking!" response. But something tells me that the selection of which US highway to remove from the long 6/395 multiplex might, as Max muses, have come down to a last-minute decision. On one hand, US 6 was by far the longest U.S. highway pre-truncation as well as an iconic ("Grand Army of the Republic") route -- but the chances are that if it had survived the renumbering it still would have been cut back to either the present 101/134/170 interchange in North Hollywood or the 5/14 Newhall Pass interchange. And US 395 still maintained a long multiplex with I-15 from Colton to Hesperia until the latter route's 1968 extension; the Hesperia-Inyokern segment could have been renumbered, along with San Diego-Moreno Valley (Riverside-Colton would have been a CA 91 extension "given"). OTOH, US 6's four multiplexes with other US (and/or Interstate) highways -- including the aborted Hollywood Freeway "never-was" segment -- probably spelled its doom (and Caltrans & its predecessor have never been known for sentimental expression). Unless, as speculated elsewhere, the plan was to eventually surmount the Sierras and teminate US 6 somewhere on CA's central coast, it was in all likelihood simply decided that US 395 was a more vital route to keep under singular designation than US 6.
Probably another reason is that US 6 was largely N-S in California. It is known to be confusing to have a N-S route signed as E-W (or vice versa), so I think Caltrans understood their opportunity with 1964 to get rid of US 6 for good (south of Bishop). It is even worse with US 6 since they have a section along San Fernando Road in the SFV that is angled in the SE that would have been signed as being westbound US 6.
As rightfully stated, sentimentality was not at all on their horizon. They were looking at it from the point of view of keeping things simple, which was a general theme with the 1964 renumbering.
Furthermore, all the multi-plexes were definitely a factor as well. In modern day Caltrans thinking, there is no reason to multiplex something if the two highways being multiplexed don't split off later in the end. This was true in 1964 and was also true for some later renumberings as well. For instance, for a long time there was a 99/70 signed multiplex north of Sacramento. The purpose of that was to guide people to both Marysville and Yuba City along the newer more direct path (compared to the old route along CA-65). But technically, since 70 did not exist south of Sacramento there was no good reason to sign the multiplex.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 01, 2019, 10:15:42 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 01, 2019, 09:50:55 PM
the following changes occurred between Aug 1934 and Oct 1935 (per pg. 21 at http://libraryarchives.metro.net/DPGTL/Californiahighways/chpw_1935_oct.pdf)
US 66 extended to Santa Monica - article suggests the endpoint was Sunset Blvd prior
US 70 concurrent with US 60 everywhere
US 299, US 395 and US 399 born
That's cool as all hell to finally see something finally showing a date of all the movements in the US Routes and new additions. Seems my suspicion about US 66 being truncates first from 7th Street is affirmed.
In case folks are not aware...most of the California Highways magazine issues from 1924-67 are available at the link below, plus a searchable work and photo index 1937-67.
http://libraryarchives.metro.net/DPGTL/Californiahighways/
Annual reports of the highway department are available through the Hathi library site...
Quote from: sparker on June 02, 2019, 01:48:54 AM
^^^^^^^^^
Pretty much everyone involved -- the Division of Highways, the City of Los Angeles, downtown merchants, and in all likelihood through traffic drivers (especially commercial) wanted US 101 off 7th Street A.S.A.P., which is why it was moved to the Boyle/Pleasant/Macy/Sunset routing by 1933 or so. Even though the 2-lane Pleasant Ave. was (technically) lower capacity than the downtown streets it replaced, it still was heads & above the slog along 7th and Vermont.
That begs the question when was 66 realigned on all four of the Figueroa Street Tunnels? I've never seen a firm date of completion on the fourth and southern most tunnel. It looked like of the Division of Highways 1935 map that 66 was using probably connecting to 101 via Broadway still on an interim alignment. Most accounts have the last Figueroa Tunnel being complete in 1936 sometime. It sure wasn't ready by the time the 1936 State Highway map was published it seems:
http://www.davidrumsey.com/ll/thumbnailView.html?startUrl=%2F%2Fwww.davidrumsey.com%2Fluna%2Fservlet%2Fas%2Fsearch%3Fos%3D0%26lc%3DRUMSEY~8~1%26q%3DCALTRANs%201934%26sort%3DPub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No%26bs%3D10
Quote from: mrsman on June 02, 2019, 08:55:42 AM
This was true in 1964 and was also true for some later renumberings as well. For instance, for a long time there was a 99/70 signed multiplex north of Sacramento. The purpose of that was to guide people to both Marysville and Yuba City along the newer more direct path (compared to the old route along CA-65). But technically, since 70 did not exist south of Sacramento there was no good reason to sign the multiplex.
IIRC I think existed also in part because when 99 was moved to the Jibboom Street/Garden Highway/El Centro Boulevard corridor in the mid-1960s, it took over an alignment that was built in the 1950s as Route 24; in the 1964 renumbering, all of former 24 between Sacramento and US 395 became Route 70. (The portion of former 24 between Antioch and midtown Sacramento became Route 160 at this time too, due to being a north-south route with very little relation to the current remnant 24 or the post-1964 70)
Quote from: TheStranger on June 02, 2019, 12:20:06 PM
Quote from: mrsman on June 02, 2019, 08:55:42 AM
This was true in 1964 and was also true for some later renumberings as well. For instance, for a long time there was a 99/70 signed multiplex north of Sacramento. The purpose of that was to guide people to both Marysville and Yuba City along the newer more direct path (compared to the old route along CA-65). But technically, since 70 did not exist south of Sacramento there was no good reason to sign the multiplex.
IIRC I think existed also in part because when 99 was moved to the Jibboom Street/Garden Highway/El Centro Boulevard corridor in the mid-1960s, it took over an alignment that was built in the 1950s as Route 24; in the 1964 renumbering, all of former 24 between Sacramento and US 395 became Route 70. (The portion of former 24 between Antioch and midtown Sacramento became Route 160 at this time too, due to being a north-south route with very little relation to the current remnant 24 or the post-1964 70)
It is an even weirder circumstance than that. CA 99 on Jibboom briefly existed alongside US 99W, US 99E and US 99 right after the renumbering. Imagine being a traveler in Sacramento at the time and possible seeing four different iterations of the same route number:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2018/12/highways-in-and-around-old-sacramento.html?m=1
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 02, 2019, 12:23:19 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on June 02, 2019, 12:20:06 PM
Quote from: mrsman on June 02, 2019, 08:55:42 AM
This was true in 1964 and was also true for some later renumberings as well. For instance, for a long time there was a 99/70 signed multiplex north of Sacramento. The purpose of that was to guide people to both Marysville and Yuba City along the newer more direct path (compared to the old route along CA-65). But technically, since 70 did not exist south of Sacramento there was no good reason to sign the multiplex.
IIRC I think existed also in part because when 99 was moved to the Jibboom Street/Garden Highway/El Centro Boulevard corridor in the mid-1960s, it took over an alignment that was built in the 1950s as Route 24; in the 1964 renumbering, all of former 24 between Sacramento and US 395 became Route 70. (The portion of former 24 between Antioch and midtown Sacramento became Route 160 at this time too, due to being a north-south route with very little relation to the current remnant 24 or the post-1964 70)
It is an even weirder circumstance than that. CA 99 on Jibboom briefly existed alongside US 99W, US 99E and US 99 right after the renumbering. Imagine being a traveler in Sacramento at the time and possible seeing four different iterations of the same route number:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2018/12/highways-in-and-around-old-sacramento.html?m=1
I recall seeing that setup in the 1967 Rand McNally atlas I have! BUT that does beg the question - were they all signed at the same time? I recall this was the era when US 99W and US 40 used P and Q streets rather than the traditional N Street routing near the Capitol; there was an overhead sign gantry at 16th and P for San Francisco/Reno from this era that persisted into the early 2010s.
There's that "70/99" (blank space that used to hold a 16 shield) overhead gantry on Capitol Mall near 5th Street that I saw numerous times in the 2000s and dates back to the time those two routes used Jibboom, makes me think 5th at Capitol Mall was the original southern/western terminus of 70. It seems that 70 actually being signed into downtown Sacramento only existed as a temporary routing while the I-5/Route 99 West Side Freeway segment north of Broadway was under construction. Broadway itself was a big part of the numbering shuffle in the mid-1960s, taking the variety of designations of US 99W, US 50, Route 99, Route 16, and for a block or two around 21st Route 24/Route 160 depending on the year.
Quote from: TheStranger on June 02, 2019, 07:31:44 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 02, 2019, 12:23:19 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on June 02, 2019, 12:20:06 PM
Quote from: mrsman on June 02, 2019, 08:55:42 AM
This was true in 1964 and was also true for some later renumberings as well. For instance, for a long time there was a 99/70 signed multiplex north of Sacramento. The purpose of that was to guide people to both Marysville and Yuba City along the newer more direct path (compared to the old route along CA-65). But technically, since 70 did not exist south of Sacramento there was no good reason to sign the multiplex.
IIRC I think existed also in part because when 99 was moved to the Jibboom Street/Garden Highway/El Centro Boulevard corridor in the mid-1960s, it took over an alignment that was built in the 1950s as Route 24; in the 1964 renumbering, all of former 24 between Sacramento and US 395 became Route 70. (The portion of former 24 between Antioch and midtown Sacramento became Route 160 at this time too, due to being a north-south route with very little relation to the current remnant 24 or the post-1964 70)
It is an even weirder circumstance than that. CA 99 on Jibboom briefly existed alongside US 99W, US 99E and US 99 right after the renumbering. Imagine being a traveler in Sacramento at the time and possible seeing four different iterations of the same route number:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2018/12/highways-in-and-around-old-sacramento.html?m=1
I recall seeing that setup in the 1967 Rand McNally atlas I have! BUT that does beg the question - were they all signed at the same time? I recall this was the era when US 99W and US 40 used P and Q streets rather than the traditional N Street routing near the Capitol; there was an overhead sign gantry at 16th and P for San Francisco/Reno from this era that persisted into the early 2010s.
There's that "70/99" (blank space that used to hold a 16 shield) overhead gantry on Capitol Mall near 5th Street that I saw numerous times in the 2000s and dates back to the time those two routes used Jibboom, makes me think 5th at Capitol Mall was the original southern/western terminus of 70. It seems that 70 actually being signed into downtown Sacramento only existed as a temporary routing while the I-5/Route 99 West Side Freeway segment north of Broadway was under construction. Broadway itself was a big part of the numbering shuffle in the mid-1960s, taking the variety of designations of US 99W, US 50, Route 99, Route 16, and for a block or two around 21st Route 24/Route 160 depending on the year.
Sacramento has done a pretty good job of signing the routes of the different state and US highways that made their way through town. Often, it is difficult to follow a state highway in a city since the routes tend to turn down different streets and often the signage is very small. (Example: try following US 1 or US 50 through Downtown Washington DC). But those overhead signs were remarkable and rare to find in a downtown. Often cities don't like using the BGSes since they assume people will start driving down the streets at highway speeds.
The focus now, though, in guiding traffic within a Downtown, is to have adequate signage to guide traffic to freeway entrances, especially in California where so many in-city state routes have been decomissioned. Sacramento is somewhat tricky as many different routings do converge in the town. And, because freeway entrances/exits tend to be on the right, it often is better to access the freeway you want via another freeway. So I found that the best way to reach US 50 west was to take P Street to I-5 south which deposited me in the right lane of I-5 south ready to exit onto US 50 without the need to merge, whereas trying to enter at 15th and W was a recipe in merging disaster.
Quote from: mrsman on June 02, 2019, 07:52:11 PM
Sacramento has done a pretty good job of signing the routes of the different state and US highways that made their way through town. Often, it is difficult to follow a state highway in a city since the routes tend to turn down different streets and often the signage is very small. (Example: try following US 1 or US 50 through Downtown Washington DC). But those overhead signs were remarkable and rare to find in a downtown. Often cities don't like using the BGSes since they assume people will start driving down the streets at highway speeds.
The focus now, though, in guiding traffic within a Downtown, is to have adequate signage to guide traffic to freeway entrances, especially in California where so many in-city state routes have been decomissioned. Sacramento is somewhat tricky as many different routings do converge in the town. And, because freeway entrances/exits tend to be on the right, it often is better to access the freeway you want via another freeway. So I found that the best way to reach US 50 west was to take P Street to I-5 south which deposited me in the right lane of I-5 south ready to exit onto US 50 without the need to merge, whereas trying to enter at 15th and W was a recipe in merging disaster.
Route 99 used to be much better signed at the Oak Park interchange (99/50/Business 80) than it is now, particularly on the ramp that carries 99 north from the South Sacramento Freeway to west US 50.
I want to say the overhead sign gantry at 16th and P was removed after 2013 or so, certainly after I moved from the Sacramento region.
As a comparison point...US 101 is pretty decently signed in San Francisco along the surface street sections (Mission Street, Van Ness Avenue, Lombard Street, Richardson Avenue). Route 1 is well-signed along 19th Avenue and Park Presidio Boulevard. 35 is signed a little on Skyline but much less so on Sloat. San Jose Avenue has a couple of trailblazers for 82.
^^^^^^^^^^
It probably would have been somewhat embarassing for the Division of Highways to tolerate poor Sacramento in-city navigation (considering the relatively complex pre-freeway arrangement, exacerbated by couplets!) as their HQ was only a block away from the N street alignment along the south Capitol flank that at its peak carried US 40, US 99W, and SSR 16. I recall traveling over those city streets as a kid on vacation -- and the signage was, well, as crystal-clear as the Division and its successor have ever deployed over surface facilities. Of course, that was when rural roads and city streets constituted virtually the entirety of the state network, and in-town navigation was paramount to both the efficiency and perception of said network -- and Sacramento was, to coin a phrase, among the "worst-case" scenarios in the state -- right up there with the pre-Figueroa tunnel configuration in and around downtown L.A., with through routes segueing from street to street at differing angles (at least most of Sacramento featured 90-degree turns and little else!). San Francisco has always had, for its population level, far fewer state routes with which to contend (of course that's due to its limited access points). But with current agency attitudes -- both at the statewide and district level -- continuity of state routes seems to be a secondary consideration. I recently made a trip from San Jose up to the Elk Grove area via Tracy and Stockton; quite a bit of new signage has been placed on CA 99 as improvements to that freeway are made -- but one thing I did notice was that the state shields on BGS's (e.g.: junctions at CA 4, CA 26, CA 88, and CA 12) are considerably smaller than previous sign iterations -- at least on overhead signs (roadside BGS's, like at CA 104, don't seem to have changed much over the years). It's as if Caltrans is attempting to downplay the role of state surface routes (even those not on the relinquishment block); the various state facilities' names seem to be given equal treatment to even control cities (somewhat of a reversal from past practices). This doesn't portend particularly well to system cohesiveness or utility; maybe the agency as currently constituted has undergone a reprioritization away from expediting through traffic in a given area to simply maintaining certain routes that happen to radiate outward from towns. This may be construed as simply speculation -- but possibly there's enough "new blood" within Caltrans that has provoked a level of self-loathing regarding what the agency was about a generation or two ago -- and that attitudinal shift has eventually affected policies in the field.
Quote from: TheStranger on June 02, 2019, 07:31:44 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 02, 2019, 12:23:19 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on June 02, 2019, 12:20:06 PM
Quote from: mrsman on June 02, 2019, 08:55:42 AM
This was true in 1964 and was also true for some later renumberings as well. For instance, for a long time there was a 99/70 signed multiplex north of Sacramento. The purpose of that was to guide people to both Marysville and Yuba City along the newer more direct path (compared to the old route along CA-65). But technically, since 70 did not exist south of Sacramento there was no good reason to sign the multiplex.
IIRC I think existed also in part because when 99 was moved to the Jibboom Street/Garden Highway/El Centro Boulevard corridor in the mid-1960s, it took over an alignment that was built in the 1950s as Route 24; in the 1964 renumbering, all of former 24 between Sacramento and US 395 became Route 70. (The portion of former 24 between Antioch and midtown Sacramento became Route 160 at this time too, due to being a north-south route with very little relation to the current remnant 24 or the post-1964 70)
It is an even weirder circumstance than that. CA 99 on Jibboom briefly existed alongside US 99W, US 99E and US 99 right after the renumbering. Imagine being a traveler in Sacramento at the time and possible seeing four different iterations of the same route number:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2018/12/highways-in-and-around-old-sacramento.html?m=1
I recall seeing that setup in the 1967 Rand McNally atlas I have! BUT that does beg the question - were they all signed at the same time? I recall this was the era when US 99W and US 40 used P and Q streets rather than the traditional N Street routing near the Capitol; there was an overhead sign gantry at 16th and P for San Francisco/Reno from this era that persisted into the early 2010s.
There's that "70/99" (blank space that used to hold a 16 shield) overhead gantry on Capitol Mall near 5th Street that I saw numerous times in the 2000s and dates back to the time those two routes used Jibboom, makes me think 5th at Capitol Mall was the original southern/western terminus of 70. It seems that 70 actually being signed into downtown Sacramento only existed as a temporary routing while the I-5/Route 99 West Side Freeway segment north of Broadway was under construction. Broadway itself was a big part of the numbering shuffle in the mid-1960s, taking the variety of designations of US 99W, US 50, Route 99, Route 16, and for a block or two around 21st Route 24/Route 160 depending on the year.
You mean this sign on Capitol Mall?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4878/32360160508_0a88d2d599_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/RiyhiS)70CAa (https://flic.kr/p/RiyhiS) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 02, 2019, 09:43:50 PM
You mean this sign on Capitol Mall?
Yes!
I'm not even sure how long that 70/99 concurrency into Sacramento existed in the field - even as far back as the 90s I don't think it was signed at all at the 99/5 split in Natomas (near the airport), notwithstanding the "TO 70 Marysville" signage that is still at that exit.
Quote from: TheStranger on June 02, 2019, 10:20:19 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 02, 2019, 09:43:50 PM
You mean this sign on Capitol Mall?
Yes!
I'm not even sure how long that 70/99 concurrency into Sacramento existed in the field - even as far back as the 90s I don't think it was signed at all at the 99/5 split in Natomas (near the airport), notwithstanding the "TO 70 Marysville" signage that is still at that exit.
When I lived in the area in the late '90s, 99/70 was signed at I-5 Natomas as well as along current 99 between I-5 and the 99/70 split. For all intents and purposes, for someone driving, the whole section was a multiplex of two highways. Occasionally, there were other auxiliary signs guiding people to 99/70 around town and some of the other highways as well saying that traffic to Marysville (or Yuba City) should follow I-5 north toward Redding.
Quote from: mrsman on June 02, 2019, 11:56:39 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on June 02, 2019, 10:20:19 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 02, 2019, 09:43:50 PM
You mean this sign on Capitol Mall?
Yes!
I'm not even sure how long that 70/99 concurrency into Sacramento existed in the field - even as far back as the 90s I don't think it was signed at all at the 99/5 split in Natomas (near the airport), notwithstanding the "TO 70 Marysville" signage that is still at that exit.
When I lived in the area in the late '90s, 99/70 was signed at I-5 Natomas as well as along current 99 between I-5 and the 99/70 split. For all intents and purposes, for someone driving, the whole section was a multiplex of two highways. Occasionally, there were other auxiliary signs guiding people to 99/70 around town and some of the other highways as well saying that traffic to Marysville (or Yuba City) should follow I-5 north toward Redding.
The multiplex of 99/70 in Sacramento disappeared sometime between 1970 and 1975 on State Highway maps. But as illustrated above the signage obviously just disappear overnight and in some cases didn't disappear at all:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2017/06/california-state-route-70-feather-river.html