Is Caltrans giving up on non-freeway state routes in SoCal?

[Quillz]

I can't remember where I first heard this, but it was more or less something to the effect that Caltrans is attempting to relinquish all non-freeway state routes within SoCal to local maintenance. Over time, this has occurred, with the deletion of routes such as 42, or the non-freeway segment of 91, and I seem to recall reading the same will eventually happen with 74.

IF this is true, does this also mean the eventual deletion of some well-established routes, such as the non-freeway segments of 23 and all of 27? Will signage be maintained for navigation purposes?

[djsekani]

I did read somewhere that Caltrans wanted to relinquish all state highways that mostly went through urban areas, but I think they're going to keep the inter-city routes.

If the routes are relinquished, don't expect them to be signed anywhere except on a map, or maybe at a freeway exit. Local governments are supposed to maintain continuation signage, but I have yet to see one instance where that's actually been the case. In Southern California alone, signage for routes 2 (Santa Monica Blvd section), 19, 39, 47, 66, 72, 83, 90, 107, 111 (Coachella Valley section), 187, and 213 are sparse at best.

[Avalanchez71]

Wasn't this dicussed last year?  Seems like deja-vu.

[emory]

I can't remember where I first heard this, but it was more or less something to the effect that Caltrans is attempting to relinquish all non-freeway state routes within SoCal to local maintenance. Over time, this has occurred, with the deletion of routes such as 42, or the non-freeway segment of 91, and I seem to recall reading the same will eventually happen with 74.

IF this is true, does this also mean the eventual deletion of some well-established routes, such as the non-freeway segments of 23 and all of 27? Will signage be maintained for navigation purposes?

They want to relinquish as many conventional highway state routes that run through more populated areas as they can. Within reason, of course.

I can't see them convincing the local municipalities to take over the segments of 23 or 27 that run through the mountains right now. They still can't even get rid of CA 14U.

[Max Rockatansky]

I know there have been a few over the years.  I'm sure most people on the Pacific Board know my thoughts on this already.  Places like Los Angeles mainly have freeways in use exclusively while the surface state routes are mostly carrying local traffic.  One could argue this two ways; the traffic counts are large enough to justify state maintenance or the areas are urbanized enough for the incorporated cities or counties to handle the task.  I tend to be of the opinion that the freeways are the navigational connectors in the urbanized areas while the surface routes largely have become obsolete for that purpose.

[Quillz]

I did read somewhere that Caltrans wanted to relinquish all state highways that mostly went through urban areas, but I think they're going to keep the inter-city routes.

If the routes are relinquished, don't expect them to be signed anywhere except on a map, or maybe at a freeway exit. Local governments are supposed to maintain continuation signage, but I have yet to see one instance where that's actually been the case. In Southern California alone, signage for routes 2 (Santa Monica Blvd section), 19, 39, 47, 66, 72, 83, 90, 107, 111 (Coachella Valley section), 187, and 213 are sparse at best.

Huh... So the brain-dead policies continue.

That really annoys me, the signage. I've mentioned before that I, and I would assume most motorists, don't give one iota of a care who maintains the route, we just want signage to be maintained for navigation purposes. Plenty of other states are good at doing this, I don't know why California can't do so with the local communities.

[djsekani]

That really annoys me, the signage. I've mentioned before that I, and I would assume most motorists, don't give one iota of a care who maintains the route, we just want signage to be maintained for navigation purposes. Plenty of other states are good at doing this, I don't know why California can't do so with the local communities.

Don't get me started on how abysmal Caltrans' signage policies are just overall.

[Max Rockatansky]

I did read somewhere that Caltrans wanted to relinquish all state highways that mostly went through urban areas, but I think they're going to keep the inter-city routes.

If the routes are relinquished, don't expect them to be signed anywhere except on a map, or maybe at a freeway exit. Local governments are supposed to maintain continuation signage, but I have yet to see one instance where that's actually been the case. In Southern California alone, signage for routes 2 (Santa Monica Blvd section), 19, 39, 47, 66, 72, 83, 90, 107, 111 (Coachella Valley section), 187, and 213 are sparse at best.

Huh... So the brain-dead policies continue.

That really annoys me, the signage. I've mentioned before that I, and I would assume most motorists, don't give one iota of a care who maintains the route, we just want signage to be maintained for navigation purposes. Plenty of other states are good at doing this, I don't know why California can't do so with the local communities.

The madness goes deeper than you know...there a crap ton of them that have a state route designation in legislation but aren't signed.  I'm with you on this though, I know a couple years ago there was an effort to even remove CA 1 signs on relinquished spots or put a TO sign.  Basically all this comes back down to how the highways function in California law is fundamentally different than a lot of states.

[Quillz]

That really annoys me, the signage. I've mentioned before that I, and I would assume most motorists, don't give one iota of a care who maintains the route, we just want signage to be maintained for navigation purposes. Plenty of other states are good at doing this, I don't know why California can't do so with the local communities.

Don't get me started on how abysmal Caltrans' signage policies are just overall.

When I finish my renumbering proposal, I want to send it to Caltrans just to see if they say anything.

They'll probably be so incensed at the amount of concurrencies and US highways I'm bringing back for the purposes of navigation and continuity they'll probably call the feds on me.

For what it's worth, today I drove to LAX. Still saw a BGS referencing CA-42, and on the way back, noticed none of the surface streets referenced CA-2 or CA-187, even though they were signed on the 405.

[Quillz]

I did read somewhere that Caltrans wanted to relinquish all state highways that mostly went through urban areas, but I think they're going to keep the inter-city routes.

If the routes are relinquished, don't expect them to be signed anywhere except on a map, or maybe at a freeway exit. Local governments are supposed to maintain continuation signage, but I have yet to see one instance where that's actually been the case. In Southern California alone, signage for routes 2 (Santa Monica Blvd section), 19, 39, 47, 66, 72, 83, 90, 107, 111 (Coachella Valley section), 187, and 213 are sparse at best.

Huh... So the brain-dead policies continue.

That really annoys me, the signage. I've mentioned before that I, and I would assume most motorists, don't give one iota of a care who maintains the route, we just want signage to be maintained for navigation purposes. Plenty of other states are good at doing this, I don't know why California can't do so with the local communities.

The madness goes deeper than you know...there a crap ton of them that have a state route designation in legislation but aren't signed.  I'm with you on this though, I know a couple years ago there was an effort to even remove CA 1 signs on relinquished spots or put a TO sign.  Basically all this comes back down to how the highways function in California law is fundamentally different than a lot of states.

This is happening in the Oxnard area with the realigned CA-1. As I understand it, CA-1 now officially runs on Rice Avenue north to the 101, so the Oxnard Boulevard signs now have greenout over the old CA-1 shields. This is perfectly fine, EXCEPT that there is no longer any reference to CA-1 at the Rice Avenue exit. This means for motorists on CA-1, the route simply disappears at some point north of PCH, and then mysteriously picks up again near the Gaviota Tunnel, since I don't believe there is any CA-1 concurrency reference between those two points (nor is there signage for the short segment of CA-1 between Ventura and Santa Barbara). Likewise, I believe that CA-232 is intended to run along Santa Clara Avenue now to connect to CA-118 at a new point. If this has happened, then there is still CA-232 references at the Vineyard Avenue exit. Also, CA-34 now officially ends at CA-1 (at Rice Avenue), yet signage still maintains the route running into Oxnard.

[Max Rockatansky]

That really annoys me, the signage. I've mentioned before that I, and I would assume most motorists, don't give one iota of a care who maintains the route, we just want signage to be maintained for navigation purposes. Plenty of other states are good at doing this, I don't know why California can't do so with the local communities.

Don't get me started on how abysmal Caltrans' signage policies are just overall.

When I finish my renumbering proposal, I want to send it to Caltrans just to see if they say anything.

They'll probably be so incensed at the amount of concurrencies and US highways I'm bringing back for the purposes of navigation and continuity they'll probably call the feds on me.

For what it's worth, today I drove to LAX. Still saw a BGS referencing CA-42, and on the way back, noticed none of the surface streets referenced CA-2 or CA-187, even though they were signed on the 405.

Since you mentioned a renumbering I'm not sure if you saw the one I did awhile back...would love some thoughts:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17993.0

I honestly would like to go back and retouch on things in a grid format now that time has passed.  I'll probably try to tackle New Mexico before I attempt anything like that....down time isn't exactly as plentiful the last couple weeks.

[Max Rockatansky]

I did read somewhere that Caltrans wanted to relinquish all state highways that mostly went through urban areas, but I think they're going to keep the inter-city routes.

If the routes are relinquished, don't expect them to be signed anywhere except on a map, or maybe at a freeway exit. Local governments are supposed to maintain continuation signage, but I have yet to see one instance where that's actually been the case. In Southern California alone, signage for routes 2 (Santa Monica Blvd section), 19, 39, 47, 66, 72, 83, 90, 107, 111 (Coachella Valley section), 187, and 213 are sparse at best.

Huh... So the brain-dead policies continue.

That really annoys me, the signage. I've mentioned before that I, and I would assume most motorists, don't give one iota of a care who maintains the route, we just want signage to be maintained for navigation purposes. Plenty of other states are good at doing this, I don't know why California can't do so with the local communities.

The madness goes deeper than you know...there a crap ton of them that have a state route designation in legislation but aren't signed.  I'm with you on this though, I know a couple years ago there was an effort to even remove CA 1 signs on relinquished spots or put a TO sign.  Basically all this comes back down to how the highways function in California law is fundamentally different than a lot of states.

This is happening in the Oxnard area with the realigned CA-1. As I understand it, CA-1 now officially runs on Rice Avenue north to the 101, so the Oxnard Boulevard signs now have greenout over the old CA-1 shields. This is perfectly fine, EXCEPT that there is no longer any reference to CA-1 at the Rice Avenue exit. This means for motorists on CA-1, the route simply disappears at some point north of PCH, and then mysteriously picks up again near the Gaviota Tunnel, since I don't believe there is any CA-1 concurrency reference between those two points (nor is there signage for the short segment of CA-1 between Ventura and Santa Barbara). Likewise, I believe that CA-232 is intended to run along Santa Clara Avenue now to connect to CA-118 at a new point. If this has happened, then there is still CA-232 references at the Vineyard Avenue exit. Also, CA-34 now officially ends at CA-1 (at Rice Avenue), yet signage still maintains the route running into Oxnard.

If I'm to understand it correctly CA 1 doesn't technically exist on US 101.  So basically anytime the two highways intersect then CA 1 technically ends and then starts again during the next split off.  I guess it kind of is functionally is like A1A, especially around Santa Barbra.

[Quillz]

That really annoys me, the signage. I've mentioned before that I, and I would assume most motorists, don't give one iota of a care who maintains the route, we just want signage to be maintained for navigation purposes. Plenty of other states are good at doing this, I don't know why California can't do so with the local communities.

Don't get me started on how abysmal Caltrans' signage policies are just overall.

When I finish my renumbering proposal, I want to send it to Caltrans just to see if they say anything.

They'll probably be so incensed at the amount of concurrencies and US highways I'm bringing back for the purposes of navigation and continuity they'll probably call the feds on me.

For what it's worth, today I drove to LAX. Still saw a BGS referencing CA-42, and on the way back, noticed none of the surface streets referenced CA-2 or CA-187, even though they were signed on the 405.

Since you mentioned a renumbering I'm not sure if you saw the one I did awhile back...would love some thoughts:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17993.0

I honestly would like to go back and retouch on things in a grid format now that time has passed.  I'll probably try to tackle New Mexico before I attempt anything like that....down time isn't exactly as plentiful the last couple weeks.

Oh, you're going to do a grid system? That's what I'm working on. I'm taking the original 1934 scheme where numbers were split between NorCal and SoCal, and doing a grid from there. I'm liking the results so far, there are inevitably a few numbers that are a little out of place, but for the most part, things line up, and I'm also allowing for limited route duplication and concurrencies, again, for the sake of navigation continuity. Will post it when I'm done.

Also I'm going to take a look at the topic you linked to, anything is better than what we've got in reality

[Quillz]

I did read somewhere that Caltrans wanted to relinquish all state highways that mostly went through urban areas, but I think they're going to keep the inter-city routes.

If the routes are relinquished, don't expect them to be signed anywhere except on a map, or maybe at a freeway exit. Local governments are supposed to maintain continuation signage, but I have yet to see one instance where that's actually been the case. In Southern California alone, signage for routes 2 (Santa Monica Blvd section), 19, 39, 47, 66, 72, 83, 90, 107, 111 (Coachella Valley section), 187, and 213 are sparse at best.

Huh... So the brain-dead policies continue.

That really annoys me, the signage. I've mentioned before that I, and I would assume most motorists, don't give one iota of a care who maintains the route, we just want signage to be maintained for navigation purposes. Plenty of other states are good at doing this, I don't know why California can't do so with the local communities.

The madness goes deeper than you know...there a crap ton of them that have a state route designation in legislation but aren't signed.  I'm with you on this though, I know a couple years ago there was an effort to even remove CA 1 signs on relinquished spots or put a TO sign.  Basically all this comes back down to how the highways function in California law is fundamentally different than a lot of states.

This is happening in the Oxnard area with the realigned CA-1. As I understand it, CA-1 now officially runs on Rice Avenue north to the 101, so the Oxnard Boulevard signs now have greenout over the old CA-1 shields. This is perfectly fine, EXCEPT that there is no longer any reference to CA-1 at the Rice Avenue exit. This means for motorists on CA-1, the route simply disappears at some point north of PCH, and then mysteriously picks up again near the Gaviota Tunnel, since I don't believe there is any CA-1 concurrency reference between those two points (nor is there signage for the short segment of CA-1 between Ventura and Santa Barbara). Likewise, I believe that CA-232 is intended to run along Santa Clara Avenue now to connect to CA-118 at a new point. If this has happened, then there is still CA-232 references at the Vineyard Avenue exit. Also, CA-34 now officially ends at CA-1 (at Rice Avenue), yet signage still maintains the route running into Oxnard.

If I'm to understand it correctly CA 1 doesn't technically exist on US 101.  So basically anytime the two highways intersect then CA 1 technically ends and then starts again during the next split off.  I guess it kind of is functionally is like A1A, especially around Santa Barbra.

Yup, and again, it's a stupid idea. Frankly, it wasn't always like that, CA-1 historically ended near the Gaviota Tunnel (there is still an "END" banner to this day), and what is today PCH was once the original CA-3 (and later US-101 Alt). But again, this is a perfect example of where a concurrency would be HELPFUL, and not confusing. For the sake of navigation, there should be CA-1 shields. If Caltrans wants to do something like make them black-on-white to somehow indicate the route doesn't "really" exist, whatever. Hell, put a "TO" banner above every shield.

[Max Rockatansky]

That really annoys me, the signage. I've mentioned before that I, and I would assume most motorists, don't give one iota of a care who maintains the route, we just want signage to be maintained for navigation purposes. Plenty of other states are good at doing this, I don't know why California can't do so with the local communities.

Don't get me started on how abysmal Caltrans' signage policies are just overall.

When I finish my renumbering proposal, I want to send it to Caltrans just to see if they say anything.

They'll probably be so incensed at the amount of concurrencies and US highways I'm bringing back for the purposes of navigation and continuity they'll probably call the feds on me.

For what it's worth, today I drove to LAX. Still saw a BGS referencing CA-42, and on the way back, noticed none of the surface streets referenced CA-2 or CA-187, even though they were signed on the 405.

Since you mentioned a renumbering I'm not sure if you saw the one I did awhile back...would love some thoughts:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17993.0

I honestly would like to go back and retouch on things in a grid format now that time has passed.  I'll probably try to tackle New Mexico before I attempt anything like that....down time isn't exactly as plentiful the last couple weeks.

Oh, you're going to do a grid system? That's what I'm working on. I'm taking the original 1934 scheme where numbers were split between NorCal and SoCal, and doing a grid from there. I'm liking the results so far, there are inevitable a few numbers that are a little out of place, but for the most part, things like up, and I'm also allowing for limited route duplication and concurrencies, again, for the sake of navigation continuity. Will post it when I'm done.

Also I'm going to take a look at the topic you linked to, anything is better than what we've got in reality

Well...like to, but that would take some hardcore substantial time to try to do. lol  I just went with cutting down the route log with relinquishment, making navigational routes and freeways two digits, adding family routes on top of some US Route extensions....corrections of certain Interstates.  I tried to keep within the theory of no concurrent routes...it's a pretty massive renumbering.  I thought the Arizona one was better honestly but it was a smaller sample to work with.

I'm with you on it's harmless to throw up some CA 1 signs along US 101 before implied the concurrent routes drop.  But then again that practice is in place across the country with a crap ton of US Routes.  Think about how long US 70/180 disappear in New Mexico along I-10 as an example....is it better than say Wyoming signing US 85/87 along I-25?

[cahwyguy]

Sigh.

To answer the question: Caltrans cannot relinquish routes to the cities unless the cities accept them. Typically, that means that Caltrans must pay to improve and repair the road. They won't be doing that voluntarily, so it is not Caltrans that is relinquishing the routes.

Remember: Any of these route relinquishments you see starts out as a bill in the state assembly or the state senate to relinquish a portion of the route to the city, with the usual mumbo jumbo. This is typically initiated at the cities request because they want to be able to make changes to the route, add bike lanes, add entrances and exits and control development without having to go through Caltrans. They get their legislative critter to do the bill.

Once it is passed and signed by the governor, then Caltrans (actually, the CTC) needs to allocate the funds to repair the road so the city will accept it.

Then, and only then, is it relinquished. All the other small relinquishments you see are small bits of road acquired during construction that finally get released.

[Max Rockatansky]

Sigh.

To answer the question: Caltrans cannot relinquish routes to the cities unless the cities accept them. Typically, that means that Caltrans must pay to improve and repair the road. They won't be doing that voluntarily, so it is not Caltrans that is relinquishing the routes.

Remember: Any of these route relinquishments you see starts out as a bill in the state assembly or the state senate to relinquish a portion of the route to the city, with the usual mumbo jumbo. This is typically initiated at the cities request because they want to be able to make changes to the route, add bike lanes, add entrances and exits and control development without having to go through Caltrans. They get their legislative critter to do the bill.

Once it is passed and signed by the governor, then Caltrans (actually, the CTC) needs to allocate the funds to repair the road so the city will accept it.

Then, and only then, is it relinquished. All the other small relinquishments you see are small bits of road acquired during construction that finally get released.

I know that I'm the outsider in a strange land, I'm kind of gathering from some of your posts that this kind of talk (signs, route relinquishment, realignment, ect) is like beating on a dead horse that has reduced to skeletal form years ago.  I'm sure that I'm driving most people who have lived here more than 5 years and know anything about roads up the walls in regards to this topic.  For what it was worth I always felt like I was entering some alien world when crossed the Colorado and hit the agriculture station when I used to do my business trips out to L.A. from Phoenix...suffice to say things are much different in California which would include the highway legislation.

For what it's worth I did the same thing when I lived in Arizona, Florida, New Mexico and Nevada....wasn't really old enough for Michigan, North Carolina, Illinois or Connecticut...plus forums didn't exist on the internet back in the 90s.  New Mexico is the one that really vexes more than any other but nobody ever wants to talk about the topic.  Nevada and Florida are too orderly really to be interesting....Arizona is too obvious.  But then again, I'd rather talk about highway legislation than talk about all the mainstream political measures that usually reach a state legislature, congress or whatever government body people see flash by on Yahoo, CNN or Fox News.

I kind of have the same reaction when anyone ever brings up crime statistics and something they saw on TV or read online somewhere....

[cahwyguy]

I've always been more of a facts and maps type of roadgeek. I've never been one to get up in arms because this route didn't go there or wasn't numbered some way, nor am I in to taking pictures. I enjoy the real history, which is fascinating enough. I'd love for these boards to be presenting the information we have that isn't already on the web, that goes beyond what we know. Do a bit of research before you post, and all that.

That said, the question that started this all was reasonable, as most people don't understand the process. The relationship between legislative routes, Caltrans, and the CTC is a confusing one.

As for "all the mainstream political measures that usually reach a state legislature": I will tell everyone to go out to http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/ and see what your state government is doing. You'll be surprised at some of the bills. For example, http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB2075 wants to relinquish Route 75. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1881, which is close to my heart, establishes minimum security standards. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB2496 would abolish Daylight Saving Time in California. You can see the ones I found interesting at http://www.cahighways.org/links-legislation.html While you are there, comment on http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160ACR197 . It would name a portion of the 210 after Jackie Robinson. I'd like them to add Mack Robinson, Jackie's brother, if they are going to name it at all. Listen to http://www.scpr.org/programs/offramp/2016/05/19/48971/hidden-history-mack-robinson-jackie-s-long-overloo/ . Mack Robinson was the athlete who went to Germany with Jesse Owens in 1936, and came in 2nd to Owens' 1st. We all recall Owens. No one remembers Mack, and he went on to do significant things in Pasadena.

[nexus73]

SR 1 coming off US 101 in Oxnard was a great way to get lost back in 2013.  I hate it when a lack of signage leads me astray! 

Rick 

[TheStranger]

SR 1 coming off US 101 in Oxnard was a great way to get lost back in 2013.  I hate it when a lack of signage leads me astray! 

Rick 

Crazy to think it's been that long since the Rice Avenue project was completed, with no signage updates!

For comparison (and to show that this is NOT always the case in every Caltrans district)...as the Route 4 Brentwood Bypass was finished in bits and pieces over the last few years, Route 4 signage was moved onto the new road as soon as it was possible - especially important as the old 4 routing forced one to take the right-hand ramp to what is now northbound 160 first, then exit to a signalized intersection, while the new 4 routing uses through lanes that were only completed relatively recently.

[Quillz]

SR 1 coming off US 101 in Oxnard was a great way to get lost back in 2013.  I hate it when a lack of signage leads me astray! 

Rick 

Crazy to think it's been that long since the Rice Avenue project was completed, with no signage updates!

For comparison (and to show that this is NOT always the case in every Caltrans district)...as the Route 4 Brentwood Bypass was finished in bits and pieces over the last few years, Route 4 signage was moved onto the new road as soon as it was possible - especially important as the old 4 routing forced one to take the right-hand ramp to what is now northbound 160 first, then exit to a signalized intersection, while the new 4 routing uses through lanes that were only completed relatively recently.

So some districts are slower than others, I see. I guess I can forgive the slowness in Oxnard a bit... The vast majority of motorists are going to be using 101 for through access, while 1 is generally more of a scenic alternate.

[TheStranger]

So some districts are slower than others, I see. I guess I can forgive the slowness in Oxnard a bit... The vast majority of motorists are going to be using 101 for through access, while 1 is generally more of a scenic alternate.

The problem with the Rice Avenue signage issues is...for several years, it's been unclear how to get to the main PCH route from 101!  And for drivers heading from the Malibu direction towards Oxnard, it's not obvious how to continue on 1 to get to 101, even though the through lanes force you onto the Rice routing now.

I've been on that section a few times as a friend of mine went to grad school in Camarillo and basically I pretty much knew how to get towards 1 via Rice only because I've followed the project extensively on these forums.

[JustDrive]

There's a standalone TO 101 sign on PCH NB past the Pleasant Valley exit (where old CA 1 would exit off the freeway). And they recently signed NB 101 at the State Beaches exit (#72) as "PCH/State Beaches" with a Highway 1 shield, though only one sign is placed SB at Seacliff. In short, it's easy to get lost on CA 1 between the Gaviota Tunnel and the freeway portion south of Oxnard.

[Quillz]

There's a standalone TO 101 sign on PCH NB past the Pleasant Valley exit (where old CA 1 would exit off the freeway). And they recently signed NB 101 at the State Beaches exit (#72) as "PCH/State Beaches" with a Highway 1 shield, though only one sign is placed SB at Seacliff. In short, it's easy to get lost on CA 1 between the Gaviota Tunnel and the freeway portion south of Oxnard.

I mentioned somewhere else that on 1 SB at Las Cruces, there is still a black-on-white "END" banner, a holdover from pre-1964 when CA-1 really did end there. That makes navigation even more difficult, since the first southbound CA-1 shield beyond that point may not be until Oxnard (since there is greenout on various US-101 BGS).

[cahwyguy]

I mentioned somewhere else that on 1 SB at Las Cruces, there is still a black-on-white "END" banner, a holdover from pre-1964 when CA-1 really did end there. That makes navigation even more difficult, since the first southbound CA-1 shield beyond that point may not be until Oxnard (since there is greenout on various US-101 BGS).

Perhaps it is there because a segment of 1 does end there. Legal definition, minus relinquishment mumbojumbo:

(a) Route 5 south of San Juan Capistrano to Route 101 near El Rio except for the portion of Route 1 relinquished...:
(b) From Route 101 at Emma Wood State Beach, 1.3 mi north of Route 33, to Route 101, 2.8 mi south of the Ventura-Santa Barbara county line at Mobil Pier Undercrossing.
(c) From Route 101 near Las Cruces to Route 101 in Pismo Beach via the vicinity of Lompoc, Vandenberg Air Force Base, and Guadalupe.
(d)From Route 101 in San Luis Obispo to Route 280 south of San Francisco along the coast via Cambria, San Simeon, and Santa Cruz.
(e) Route 280 near the south boundary of the City and County of San Francisco to Route 101 near the approach to the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco.
(f) From Route 101 near the southerly end of Marin Peninsula to Route 101 near Leggett via the coast route through Jenner and Westport.