CA-1 Should Be a Scenic Route through Malibu

[RZF]

It just occurred to me how weird it is that CA-1 is not considered a scenic route in between western Malibu and Las Posas Rd near USN Point Mugu. That drive is truly world class, with the vast ocean blue right there on one side and some towering Santa Monica Mountains on the other. Hell, car commercials and movies are constantly filmed along this stretch. It is awesome to have it as my commute from Port Hueneme into Malibu/Santa Monica.

Similar and less "scenic" routes are given scenic titles, so why can't that portion of State Route 1 be given that?

Optimally, it should be legislated as scenic between Yerba Buena Rd in unincorporated Solromar (the name for the Ventura County portion of Malibu) and Las Posas Rd.

What do you guys think?

[Max Rockatansky]

I agree but I'll also add that routes like CA 152 over Pacheco Pass somehow qualify as "Scenic Highways" so the criteria is screwy and poorly maintained to say the least.

[skluth]

I don't think anyone needs to be told CA 1 is scenic. It's been a world-famous scenic drive since I was a kid growing up in Wisconsin in the 1960s. Adding it to a list won't change that. It might add even more traffic though, one thing CA 1 along Malibu doesn't need.

[kphoger]

I don't think anyone needs to be told CA 1 is scenic. ... Adding it to a list ... might add even more traffic

Contradicting yourself.

[skluth]

I don't think anyone needs to be told CA 1 is scenic. ... Adding it to a list ... might add even more traffic

Contradicting yourself.

Why? Adding it to a list means people will go just to check it off a list if they wouldn't have gone otherwise. It wouldn't be much, but it would happen.

[GaryA]

It just occurred to me how weird it is that CA-1 is not considered a scenic route in between western Malibu and Las Posas Rd near USN Point Mugu. That drive is truly world class, with the vast ocean blue right there on one side and some towering Santa Monica Mountains on the other. Hell, car commercials and movies are constantly filmed along this stretch. It is awesome to have it as my commute from Port Hueneme into Malibu/Santa Monica.

Similar and less "scenic" routes are given scenic titles, so why can't that portion of State Route 1 be given that?

Optimally, it should be legislated as scenic between Yerba Buena Rd in unincorporated Solromar (the name for the Ventura County portion of Malibu) and Las Posas Rd.

What do you guys think?

According to https://www.cahighways.org/001-008.html, it already is (this is for the 1(a) section, San Juan Capistrano to Oxnard).

Scenic Route
[SHC 263.2] From Route 5 south of San Juan Capistrano to Route 19 near Long Beach; and from Route 187 near Santa Monica to Route 101 near El Rio.

How well it's signed (if at all) is a different question -- but I don't know how much attention and money Caltrans is giving to scenic highway signage anywhere these days.

[sparker]

It just occurred to me how weird it is that CA-1 is not considered a scenic route in between western Malibu and Las Posas Rd near USN Point Mugu. That drive is truly world class, with the vast ocean blue right there on one side and some towering Santa Monica Mountains on the other. Hell, car commercials and movies are constantly filmed along this stretch. It is awesome to have it as my commute from Port Hueneme into Malibu/Santa Monica.

Similar and less "scenic" routes are given scenic titles, so why can't that portion of State Route 1 be given that?

Optimally, it should be legislated as scenic between Yerba Buena Rd in unincorporated Solromar (the name for the Ventura County portion of Malibu) and Las Posas Rd.

What do you guys think?

According to https://www.cahighways.org/001-008.html, it already is (this is for the 1(a) section, San Juan Capistrano to Oxnard).

Scenic Route
[SHC 263.2] From Route 5 south of San Juan Capistrano to Route 19 near Long Beach; and from Route 187 near Santa Monica to Route 101 near El Rio.

How well it's signed (if at all) is a different question -- but I don't know how much attention and money Caltrans is giving to scenic highway signage anywhere these days.

Regarding Caltrans' "scenic" signage (the "poppy" flower appendages to reassurance shield assemblies) -- I haven't seen new or replacement ones of those deployed in this area (which includes CA 1, CA 35, CA 9, parts of CA 84 near the coast, etc.); much of the existing sign stock is fading with age or apparently has fallen off or been removed and not replaced.  Given the agency's seeming lack of concern with signage in general, I would expect scenic signage to be well down the priority list.

[cahwyguy]

According to https://www.cahighways.org/001-008.html, it already is (this is for the 1(a) section, San Juan Capistrano to Oxnard).

Scenic Route
[SHC 263.2] From Route 5 south of San Juan Capistrano to Route 19 near Long Beach; and from Route 187 near Santa Monica to Route 101 near El Rio.

How well it's signed (if at all) is a different question -- but I don't know how much attention and money Caltrans is giving to scenic highway signage anywhere these days.

It's a bit more complicated than that. The legislative definition is just the start of the process, just like the legislative definition of something as part of the Freeway and Expressway system doesn't mean it is actually a freeway.

There's a collection of Scenic Highway Guidelines at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/guidelines/scenic_hwy_guidelines_04-12-2012.pdf . After being defined in the SHC as eligible, cities and/or counties (hereafter referred to as local governing bodies) must develop and implement a Corridor Protection Program containing five legislatively required elements, generally accepted as land use planning standards. That then has to be reviewed and approved before there is signage.

As for the Corridor Protection Program:

The five legislatively required elements of corridor protection  are:
1) Regulation of land use and density of development (i.e., density classifications and types of allowable land uses),
2) Detailed land and site planning (i.e., permit or design review authority and regulations for the review of proposed developments),
3) Control of outdoor advertising (i.e., prohibition of off-premise advertising signs and control of on-premise advertising signs),
4) Careful attention to and control of earthmoving and landscaping (i.e., grading ordinances, grading permit requirements, design review authority, landscaping and vegetation
requirements), and
5) The design and appearance of structures and equipment (i.e., design review authority and regulations for the placement of utility structures, microwave receptors, wireless
communication towers, etc.).

I'm not sure that's all been done for PCH, either by the city of Malibu, LA County, Ventura County, Pt. Heuneme, or Oxnard.

There's a lot more information on scenic highways at http://www.dot.ca.gov/design/lap/livability/scenic-highways/index.html

Daniel

[Techknow]

In regards to CA-1 scenic route signage, I drove the route from Jenner to Point Arena (Sonoma to Mendocino counties) last week and did not notice any scenic route signs. According to cahighways.org it is designated as a scenic highway in that stretch. CA 116, at least from CA 1 to Monte Rio, is signed as a scenic route however.

[sparker]

In regards to CA-1 scenic route signage, I drove the route from Jenner to Point Arena (Sonoma to Mendocino counties) last week and did not notice any scenic route signs. According to cahighways.org it is designated as a scenic highway in that stretch. CA 116, at least from CA 1 to Monte Rio, is signed as a scenic route however.

Not surprising -- signage on the north coast section of CA 1 is prone to rust; it's likely that if that segment of highway is indeed classified as a scenic route, it had some of the "poppy" markers at some point, but they weren't replaced after rust damage (generally a judgment call on the part of the Caltrans maintenance crews).  A similar situation occurs in "snow country" as well, where extended exposure to moisture causes rust damage to metal-alloy signs.  Regarding the signage on CA 116 -- since most of that signage is inland from the fog bank that shrouds CA 1 much of the time, it probably was affected less severely, and was intact to the point where the maintenance crews decided not to remove the scenic indicators.