AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Author Topic: California  (Read 44251 times)

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3062
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: January 20, 2018, 03:57:41 PM
Re: California
« Reply #100 on: August 31, 2016, 06:03:11 AM »

As there is a currently planned city effort (spearheaded by the architect Frank Gehry) to return the Los Angeles River, including the area in question here, to a more "natural" state (which would entail removing much of the concrete channelization), construction of flyovers that would encroach on the riverbed may be a non-starter, given the current sociopolitical climate in L.A.  My guess would be that we'll all be living with the present cliff-hugging transitional ramps from 110 to 5 -- and vice-versa -- for the foreseeable future.
Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1684
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: Today at 03:21:05 PM
Re: California
« Reply #101 on: September 02, 2016, 03:21:23 PM »

I used to frequent Universal and that interchange was always a mess. I didn't know that they (finally) added a direct connection from Universal Blvd to SB101. I remember always having to drive quite a way south on Cahuenga Blvd to get on.

Also, it looks like just north of the new SB101 onramp, there is a US 101 shield with green NORTH and directional arrow tabs. The northbound onramp from NB Universal is also using painted posts for it's entrance assembly.

Caltrans giveth... Caltrans taketh away.

The new SB 101 onramp came at the expense of the old SB 101 offramp for Barham Blvd. There is now no exit on SB 101 between Lankershim and Highland, a distance of almost 3 miles.
Logged

Exit58

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 66
  • Location: Phoenix, AZ
  • Last Login: November 19, 2017, 07:47:33 PM
Re: California
« Reply #102 on: September 02, 2016, 03:36:28 PM »

Caltrans giveth... Caltrans taketh away.

The new SB 101 onramp came at the expense of the old SB 101 offramp for Barham Blvd. There is now no exit on SB 101 between Lankershim and Highland, a distance of almost 3 miles.

According to Google Maps that ramp has been closed for almost a decade though. The new on ramp was just built within the last two years.
Logged

Occidental Tourist

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 299
  • Last Login: January 19, 2018, 06:10:57 PM
Re: California
« Reply #103 on: September 02, 2016, 04:00:32 PM »

Caltrans giveth... Caltrans taketh away.

The new SB 101 onramp came at the expense of the old SB 101 offramp for Barham Blvd. There is now no exit on SB 101 between Lankershim and Highland, a distance of almost 3 miles.

According to Google Maps that ramp has been closed for almost a decade though. The new on ramp was just built within the last two years.

He means this one. 



After they closed the old old diamond ramp, they partially replaced it with an on/off for southbound 101 traffic.  When they opened the new Universal City ramp southbound, they closed the replacement Barham southbound offramp because of a weaving problem

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-adv-universal-city-ramp-20141221-story.html
Logged

Exit58

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 66
  • Location: Phoenix, AZ
  • Last Login: November 19, 2017, 07:47:33 PM
Re: California
« Reply #104 on: September 02, 2016, 04:25:28 PM »

He means this one. 



After they closed the old old diamond ramp, they partially replaced it with an on/off for southbound 101 traffic.  When they opened the new Universal City ramp southbound, they closed the replacement Barham southbound offramp because of a weaving problem

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-adv-universal-city-ramp-20141221-story.html

Wow they did such a great job of removing the off ramp it's practically gone! I forgot it was even there. I haven't been up that way in eons.
Logged

andy3175

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1229
  • Location: San Diego, California, USA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:55:45 AM
    • AARoads
Re: California
« Reply #105 on: September 05, 2016, 12:35:24 AM »

As for the missing Freeway Entrance sign, I've seen Caltrans do this on ramps leading to an expressway segment, because the ramp is technically not a freeway entrance.  Here's an example:



Or you might find an expressway entrance sign, but this is much less common (this is at the Brawley Bypass, SR 78-111); I cannot name another place where an expressway entrance sign is in use in California, but I would imagine other uses of "expressway entrance" are out there:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Brawley,+CA+92227/@32.9988404,-115.5264008,3a,60y,302.62h,91.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSMKDnnvP2T00ADtCvCVFHA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x80d74f9483289275:0xb1aa9c384dced8f1!8m2!3d32.9786566!4d-115.530267

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Brawley,+CA+92227/@33.0024928,-115.5264465,3a,60y,296.15h,86.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDsUpDtmk2Vz921TeFzEIqw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x80d74f9483289275:0xb1aa9c384dced8f1!8m2!3d32.9786566!4d-115.530267
Logged
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

coatimundi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 788
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Marina, CA
  • Last Login: May 12, 2017, 12:42:29 AM
Re: California
« Reply #106 on: September 05, 2016, 01:15:31 AM »

As for the missing Freeway Entrance sign, I've seen Caltrans do this on ramps leading to an expressway segment, because the ramp is technically not a freeway entrance.  Here's an example:

Or you might find an expressway entrance sign, but this is much less common (this is at the Brawley Bypass, SR 78-111); I cannot name another place where an expressway entrance sign is in use in California, but I would imagine other uses of "expressway entrance" are out there:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Brawley,+CA+92227/@32.9988404,-115.5264008,3a,60y,302.62h,91.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSMKDnnvP2T00ADtCvCVFHA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x80d74f9483289275:0xb1aa9c384dced8f1!8m2!3d32.9786566!4d-115.530267

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Brawley,+CA+92227/@33.0024928,-115.5264465,3a,60y,296.15h,86.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDsUpDtmk2Vz921TeFzEIqw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x80d74f9483289275:0xb1aa9c384dced8f1!8m2!3d32.9786566!4d-115.530267

Santa Nella just needed to get in on all that: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.057404,-121.0163755,3a,75y,218.94h,76.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4z_ygnKvpxh_V1lgzOnGcw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Logged

sdmichael

Re: California
« Reply #107 on: September 05, 2016, 01:42:48 AM »

As for the missing Freeway Entrance sign, I've seen Caltrans do this on ramps leading to an expressway segment, because the ramp is technically not a freeway entrance.  Here's an example:



Or you might find an expressway entrance sign, but this is much less common (this is at the Brawley Bypass, SR 78-111); I cannot name another place where an expressway entrance sign is in use in California, but I would imagine other uses of "expressway entrance" are out there:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Brawley,+CA+92227/@32.9988404,-115.5264008,3a,60y,302.62h,91.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSMKDnnvP2T00ADtCvCVFHA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x80d74f9483289275:0xb1aa9c384dced8f1!8m2!3d32.9786566!4d-115.530267

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Brawley,+CA+92227/@33.0024928,-115.5264465,3a,60y,296.15h,86.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDsUpDtmk2Vz921TeFzEIqw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x80d74f9483289275:0xb1aa9c384dced8f1!8m2!3d32.9786566!4d-115.530267

There is google... and there is this:

http://socalregion.com/brawley-bypass/
Logged

coatimundi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 788
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Marina, CA
  • Last Login: May 12, 2017, 12:42:29 AM
Re: California
« Reply #108 on: September 05, 2016, 02:28:09 PM »

Noticed this fabulous 84 multiplex this morning on the way up to Sonoma where, IIRC, there is no multiplex. I had thought the definition had it end on both sides of 880. Google Maps shows it multiplexed too.
Logged

myosh_tino

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2598
  • Silicon Valley Roadgeek

  • Age: 44
  • Location: Cupertino, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:30:37 AM
    • Silicon Valley Roads @ Markyville.com
Re: California
« Reply #109 on: September 05, 2016, 03:23:44 PM »

Noticed this fabulous 84 multiplex this morning on the way up to Sonoma where, IIRC, there is no multiplex. I had thought the definition had it end on both sides of 880. Google Maps shows it multiplexed too.

I figure Google's explanation for showing 84 and 880 as being multiplexed is because Caltrans' own signs seem to imply the same thing...


Bonus points for anyone who noticed the "Craig County"-esque boo boo on this sign





FWIW, there's supposed to be another discontinuity of CA-84 at US 101 but once again, both routes are signed on freeway entrance assemblies and reassurance markers...

Logged
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

coatimundi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 788
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Marina, CA
  • Last Login: May 12, 2017, 12:42:29 AM
Re: California
« Reply #110 on: September 05, 2016, 05:14:23 PM »

Interesting. I could see the reasoning for it being on the entrance ramps from 84, as it would guide drivers to the corresponding segment, especially since the 880 section used to be continuous.
I don't really get why Caltrans is so against multiplexes. This is a situation where it could be quite useful.

And here's the Street View link that I copied but didnt post, but it may just go to the map. I'll have to stop posting on my phone because nothing works very well and my autocorrect makes poor decisions.
https://goo.gl/maps/VFRTc6pAK532
Logged

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2482
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: Today at 12:16:32 AM
Re: California
« Reply #111 on: September 05, 2016, 08:12:57 PM »

if it's signed as continuous, it's continuous.
Logged

coatimundi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 788
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Marina, CA
  • Last Login: May 12, 2017, 12:42:29 AM
Re: California
« Reply #112 on: September 05, 2016, 08:33:10 PM »

if it's signed as continuous, it's continuous.

Well, no, that's not true. That's the thing about it: Caltrans' definition of it does not include any of the several multiplexed sections. But I meant formerly continuous with regards to the fact that it used to be one, continuous roadway between the Dunbarton Bridge and the section of Thornton Avenue east of 880.
So it's no longer continuous, but it is contiguous, I s'pose.
Logged

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2482
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: Today at 12:16:32 AM
Re: California
« Reply #113 on: September 05, 2016, 08:34:31 PM »

if it's signed as continuous, it's continuous.

Well, no, that's not true. That's the thing about it: Caltrans' definition of it does not include any of the several multiplexed sections. But I meant formerly continuous with regards to the fact that it used to be one, continuous roadway between the Dunbarton Bridge and the section of Thornton Avenue east of 880.
So it's no longer continuous, but it is contiguous, I s'pose.
Why would caltrans want those small gaps anyway? That's super weird.
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3160
  • Last Login: Today at 02:43:52 PM
Re: California
« Reply #114 on: September 06, 2016, 05:01:22 AM »


Why would caltrans want those small gaps anyway? That's super weird.

It isn't Caltrans themselves per se but the actual legislative definitions of routes.

Weirdly enough, looking at Cahighways.org, Route 84 from Route 1 east to I-680 was the pre-1963 Legislatively Route Number 107 (including the concurrencies today with US 101, I-880, and Route 238), while the portion from I-680 east to I-580 (and then along the never built/signed Vasco Road corridor) was LRN 108, and the portion of somewhat-signed Route 84 today north of Route 12 was LRN 99.

There are only a couple of route definitions post-1964 that imply a concurrency, rather than breaking it into several segments; Route 271 is the one that immediately comes to mind (even though it is not signed along US 101 from Route 1 to the second segment a bit north). 

I don't know much about the process that drew up the 1964-era route definitions - were some routes determined major and thus given legislative precedence in concurrency definitions, i.e. US 101 being defined in only two segments that corresponded to (mostly) LRN 1 and LRN 2?

Logged
Chris Sampang

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3062
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: January 20, 2018, 03:57:41 PM
Re: California
« Reply #115 on: September 06, 2016, 09:48:25 AM »

There are only a couple of route definitions post-1964 that imply a concurrency, rather than breaking it into several segments; Route 271 is the one that immediately comes to mind (even though it is not signed along US 101 from Route 1 to the second segment a bit north). 

I don't know much about the process that drew up the 1964-era route definitions - were some routes determined major and thus given legislative precedence in concurrency definitions, i.e. US 101 being defined in only two segments that corresponded to (mostly) LRN 1 and LRN 2?
CA 271 is an "odd duck", intended to be a scenic alternative to US 101, which in the '60's and the '70's was being reconstructed as a limited-access facility generally uphill from the original route, which for the most part followed a series of canyons or narrow valleys containing redwood groves.  As noted above, 271 was signed in 2 segments once the 101 freeway was in place; it was intended that once a freeway segment from Leggett north to Smithe Grove State Park was constructed, 271 would be signed over the original highway, connecting those separate segments.  Environmental concerns have since halted any freeway development along that stretch of US 101, hence the "split" route on CA 271; the southern section traverses the redwood-filled valley between Cummings and Leggett, while the northern serves Smithe Grove.  If/when completed, 271 was intended to function exactly like CA 254 (Avenue of the Giants) further north, as a scenic 101 alternative.

Looking at the old LRN system, it was clear that the lowest numbers -- the first to be defined -- connected specific cities, places, or points of interest deemed to be of statewide importance -- 1 & 2 essentially defined US 101 (with some local deviations such as the northernmost segment of LRN 1 along US 199 rather than 101) from the Mexican border to Oregon, and 3 & 4 covering US 99 (and 99E) from Oregon south to Los Angeles.  The next batch of numbers were connectors from these north-south "spines" to other points, sometimes in two directions; 5 - 8 were scattered over Northern California, connecting to one or more of the "spines".   9 was more or less a rather strange "branch" from 2 in Ventura, extending east along the northern reaches of the Los Angeles basin to San Bernardino, while 10 crossed east-west on what is now CA 198.  11 extended two ways from Sacramento (SW and east along US 50), 12 connected 2 in San Diego with Imperial Valley via US 80, 13 connected 4 at Salida, north of Modesto, with the eastern Sierra slope (on what is now CA 219 and CA 108).  14 was a Bay Area connector from Oakland to Martinez (at the time, the US 40 Carquinez Bridge was privately owned and not part of the LRN network, so US 40 was discontinuous:  LRN 14 south of the bridge and LRN 7 northward).  LRN 15 connected LRN's 1 & 3 via CA 20, while LRN 16 was CA 175 from Hopland to Kelseyville, on Clear Lake (this must have been politically-motivated, as it partially duplicates LRN 15, only 20 miles to the north).  LRN 17 connected LRN 3 at Roseville to Grass Valley, while LRN 18 was the "all-weather" Yosemite connection (CA 140) from LRN 4 at Merced.  LRN 19 connected LRN 2 at Fullerton to the "Inland Empire" cities of Pomona and Riverside, while LRN 20 was a cross-state connector, originally CA 44 for its full length but later US 299 (CA 299) west of Redding.  LRN 21 and above didn't follow the pattern of the first 20 as "branches" extending out from the spines, but were established in order statewide as roads were brought into the state system.   
« Last Edit: September 06, 2016, 09:55:34 AM by sparker »
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3160
  • Last Login: Today at 02:43:52 PM
Re: California
« Reply #116 on: September 06, 2016, 12:52:41 PM »


Looking at the old LRN system, it was clear that the lowest numbers -- the first to be defined -- connected specific cities, places, or points of interest deemed to be of statewide importance -- 1 & 2 essentially defined US 101 (with some local deviations such as the northernmost segment of LRN 1 along US 199 rather than 101)

I have always thought that LRN 1 being assigned along the combination of California US 199 and then the portion of 101 south of there to SF was because all of that is the named Redwood Highway altogether.
Logged
Chris Sampang

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3062
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: January 20, 2018, 03:57:41 PM
Re: California
« Reply #117 on: September 06, 2016, 03:56:31 PM »


Looking at the old LRN system, it was clear that the lowest numbers -- the first to be defined -- connected specific cities, places, or points of interest deemed to be of statewide importance -- 1 & 2 essentially defined US 101 (with some local deviations such as the northernmost segment of LRN 1 along US 199 rather than 101)

I have always thought that LRN 1 being assigned along the combination of California US 199 and then the portion of 101 south of there to SF was because all of that is the named Redwood Highway altogether.
Since LRN 1 was in the first batch of highways to be designated in 1924, it's likely that the shift to US 199 north of Crescent City was a nod to the fact that the upper Rogue River valley in Oregon, including Grants Pass, was more of a population and commercial center than was the Oregon coast at the time.  Brookings, the largest town on the coast south of Coos Bay, didn't come into its own, population-wise, until it developed into a retirement center post-WW II.  Also, since logging of the redwoods in the valley areas of Del Norte County was one of the two major enterprises there (commercial fishing being the other), it was likely thought that access to the nearest railhead, Grants Pass, would entail the prioritization of that route for those purposes.  The adoption of the "Redwood Highway" name likely came later as the state -- and later national -- parks were developed in the region, and tourism became a major commercial component in the area.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2016, 04:00:18 PM by sparker »
Logged

cahwyguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 197
  • California Highway Guy

  • Age: 58
  • Location: Northridge, CA
  • Last Login: January 19, 2018, 05:39:52 PM
    • California Highways
Re: California
« Reply #118 on: September 06, 2016, 09:21:47 PM »

it was clear that the lowest numbers -- the first to be defined -- connected specific cities, places, or points of interest deemed to be of statewide importance -- 1 & 2 essentially defined US 101 (with some local deviations such as the northernmost segment of LRN 1 along US 199 rather than 101) from the Mexican border to Oregon, and 3 & 4 covering US 99 (and 99E) from Oregon south to Los Angeles.  The next batch of numbers were connectors from these north-south "spines" to other points, sometimes in two directions; 5 - 8 were scattered over Northern California, connecting to one or more of the "spines".   9 was more or less a rather strange "branch" from 2 in Ventura, extending east along the northern reaches of the Los Angeles basin to San Bernardino, while 10 crossed east-west on what is now CA 198.  11 extended two ways from Sacramento (SW and east along US 50), 12 connected 2 in San Diego with Imperial Valley via US 80, 13 connected 4 at Salida, north of Modesto, with the eastern Sierra slope (on what is now CA 219 and CA 108).  14 was a Bay Area connector from Oakland to Martinez (at the time, the US 40 Carquinez Bridge was privately owned and not part of the LRN network, so US 40 was discontinuous:  LRN 14 south of the bridge and LRN 7 northward).  LRN 15 connected LRN's 1 & 3 via CA 20, while LRN 16 was CA 175 from Hopland to Kelseyville, on Clear Lake (this must have been politically-motivated, as it partially duplicates LRN 15, only 20 miles to the north).  LRN 17 connected LRN 3 at Roseville to Grass Valley, while LRN 18 was the "all-weather" Yosemite connection (CA 140) from LRN 4 at Merced.  LRN 19 connected LRN 2 at Fullerton to the "Inland Empire" cities of Pomona and Riverside, while LRN 20 was a cross-state connector, originally CA 44 for its full length but later US 299 (CA 299) west of Redding.  LRN 21 and above didn't follow the pattern of the first 20 as "branches" extending out from the spines, but were established in order statewide as roads were brought into the state system.   

Note that I have a full chronology at http://www.cahighways.org/chronlgy.html  (to which Sparker's observation, above, will be added with attribution). Note that a number of legislative routes were established long before the state got the bright idea to number them legislatively (and that was long before they, or more rightly, the auto club, decided to sign them with numbers). Interestingly enough, these earliest routes weren't the single digit LRNs -- they were portions of LRN 11 (eventual US 50), LRN 18 (Route 140), LRN 11 (adding parts of eventual Route 16, eventual Route 51 / BR 80), LRN 40 (Route 120 and Route 108), LRN 13 (Route 108), LRN 20 (US 299, later Route 44), LRN 41 (Route 180), LRN 35 and LRN 36 (Route 3, Route 36, Route 194) and LRN 37 (US 40, later, of course, I-80). It wasn't until the first bond issue in 1909 that you got LRN 1.

Further, and perhaps this explains Sparker's observation, the bond issue noted: "The route or routes of said state highways shall be selected by the department of engineering and said route shall be selected and said highways so laid out and constructed or acquired as to constitute a continuous and connected state highway system running north and south through the state traversing the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys and along the Pacific Coast by the most direct and practicable routes, connecting the county seats of the several counties through which it passes and joining the centers of population, together with such branch roads as may be necessary to connect therewith the several county seats lying east and west of said state highway."

Quote
Since LRN 1 was in the first batch of highways to be designated in 1924, it's likely that the shift to US 199 north of Crescent City was a nod to the fact that the upper Rogue River valley in Oregon, including Grants Pass, was more of a population and commercial center than was the Oregon coast at the time.  Brookings, the largest town on the coast south of Coos Bay, didn't come into its own, population-wise, until it developed into a retirement center post-WW II.  Also, since logging of the redwoods in the valley areas of Del Norte County was one of the two major enterprises there (commercial fishing being the other), it was likely thought that access to the nearest railhead, Grants Pass, would entail the prioritization of that route for those purposes.  The adoption of the "Redwood Highway" name likely came later as the state -- and later national -- parks were developed in the region, and tourism became a major commercial component in the area.

Actually, LRN 1 was defined in the first bond issue in 1909 -- see http://www.cahighways.org/chrphas1.html . That gave you most of the first 34 legislatively defined routes. LRN1 was defined broadly: "From San Francisco to Crescent City, 371.2 mi". Similarly LRN 2 "From San Francisco to San Diego, 481.8 mi".
« Last Edit: September 06, 2016, 09:25:56 PM by cahwyguy »
Logged
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3062
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: January 20, 2018, 03:57:41 PM
Re: California
« Reply #119 on: September 07, 2016, 04:45:11 PM »

Actually, LRN 1 was defined in the first bond issue in 1909 -- see http://www.cahighways.org/chrphas1.html . That gave you most of the first 34 legislatively defined routes. LRN1 was defined broadly: "From San Francisco to Crescent City, 371.2 mi". Similarly LRN 2 "From San Francisco to San Diego, 481.8 mi".
Since the original "loose" definition of LRN 1 cited Crescent City as the terminus, it's likely that the decision to prioritize the inland US 199 corridor for the reasons I stated previously came at a later date -- possibly when the original multi-route highway system was formulated circa 1924.  It might be useful to obtain a history of the deployment of US 101 along the Oregon coast to ascertain whether the northern extension of US 101 to the Oregon state line (LRN 71) was developed in conjunction with efforts north of the state line. 

Coincidentally, the three U.S. routes that cross into Oregon, aside from US 199 (LRN 1) and US 99 (LRN 3) have successive numbers, west to east (US 101=LRN 71, US 97=LRN 72, and US 395=LRN 73), which suggests that they were commissioned at or near the same time -- although the original US 97 southern terminus used OR 66 from Klamath Falls to Ashland, and US 395 was SSR 7 until the late '30's, so their eventual status as US highways may well be a matter of later development regardless of the origin of the LRN "cluster".  It's likely LRN 72 got its start as a parallel road to the rerouted Southern Pacific main line to Oregon via Dorris and Klamath Falls (the original closely paralleled US 99 but had the disadvantage of having to surmount a series of steep grades), which was opened in 1927, a few years prior to the LRN 71-73 commissioning.   
« Last Edit: September 07, 2016, 04:55:20 PM by sparker »
Logged

coatimundi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 788
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Marina, CA
  • Last Login: May 12, 2017, 12:42:29 AM
Re: California
« Reply #120 on: September 07, 2016, 06:07:12 PM »

So I'm a little curious on this one: why wouldn't LRN 1 and the Redwood Highway name be on 199?
The way I look at it is that the entire Redwood Highway was the most ideal routing from what were then some of the more populated parts of California into the more populated parts of Oregon. It's just an easier winter routing than US 99, so I think the idea was that it would be the primary north-south route in the state.
From what I understand also, most of what is now US 101 in Oregon didn't exist until more into the mid-20th century.

I don't know though: maybe I'm misunderstanding the discussion here.
Logged

cahwyguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 197
  • California Highway Guy

  • Age: 58
  • Location: Northridge, CA
  • Last Login: January 19, 2018, 05:39:52 PM
    • California Highways
Re: California
« Reply #121 on: September 07, 2016, 06:20:44 PM »

Sparker: I dropped a note to the fellow who has been investigating the history of US highways in Oregon (we've been going back and forth on US 199), pointing him to this discussion. Hopefully, he'll chime in with the answer to your question.
Logged
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

JasonOfORoads

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 190
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Portland, OR
  • Last Login: January 19, 2018, 08:13:29 PM
    • ORoads: The Roads of Oregon
Re: California
« Reply #122 on: September 07, 2016, 08:40:07 PM »

The way I look at it is that the entire Redwood Highway was the most ideal routing from what were then some of the more populated parts of California into the more populated parts of Oregon. It's just an easier winter routing than US 99, so I think the idea was that it would be the primary north-south route in the state.
From what I understand also, most of what is now US 101 in Oregon didn't exist until more into the mid-20th century.

I'm not in front of all my documents, so I can only speak to what I have access to and from off the top of my head.

Oregon was the last of the 3 Pacific states to create a highway department (1913), and until the start of the 1930s most roadbuilding was done under county jurisdiction, with assistance from the state. However, the state did define 36 state highways in 1917, presumably to be under state jurisdiction. Our Hwy #1 was the Pacific Highway from Washington to California mostly along what became US-99E and US-99; #2 was the Columbia River Highway from Astoria to Umatilla along what became US-30; and #3 was the Coast Highway, originally the Roosevelt Military Highway, along what became US-101 from Astoria to the California line just south of Brookings. By comparison, what would eventually become US-199, the Grants Pass-Crescent City Highway, was #25 -- so if number is an indication of importance, Oregon clearly thought much more highly of the coastal route than the one through the redwoods. (Also, I imagine the state highway commission wanted to create a coastal highway with the same scenery and design standards as the Columbia River Highway, which had opened the previous year to great fanfare.)

I can't speak to the condition of the road in its early days, but I imagine that the quality was very poor around 1917. As previously mentioned, the counties and cities built roads back then; while segments of what became the Oregon Coast Highway did exist, they weren't considered a single highway with missing parts just yet. Therefore, the routes on the maps were considered temporary until properly surveyed. According to the 1920 state highway map, while the surveys were largely done for the other state highways, the Oregon Coast Highway (now #9) was the only one with sections marked as "under consideration". I imagine that the surveys simply took longer -- the terrain was difficult to traverse, the weather was largely unfavorable, and roads in coastal communities may not yet have connected to the rest of the state at all.

By 1920, the section from Gold Beach to the California line was marked as under consideration, then upgraded to "unimproved" in 1922 with a graded section around Cape Sebastian. By 1926, the Gold Beach-California section was either graded or rock- and gravel-surfaced, and by 1932 it was all oiled macadam. In fact, the 1930 state highway map shows roughly 95% of the highway being rock/gravel or better, with Florence still having graded and unimproved segments. (By comparison, Oregon's section of the Pacific Highway was paved border-to-border by 1922.) The Oregon Coast Highway became driveable from the state line to Astoria in 1936, when the last of five coastal ferries was replaced by a bridge (I forget which).

So I think it would be accurate to say that while a paved US-101 didn't fully exist until the mid-20th century, it did exist as a contiguous though tortuous route (save for the ferries) by 1922.

The Redwood Highway -- the current name for the Grants Pass-Crescent City Highway -- was similarly unimproved in 1922, save a graded section near the Illinois River -- probably for a bridge or in preparation of one. A roughly 5-mile section was graded from the California border northward by 1924, then made rock/gravel from the border to the Illinois River by 1926. The entirety of US-199 in Oregon was oiled macadam by 1930.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2016, 09:01:02 PM by JasonOfORoads »
Logged
Borderline addicted to roadgeeking since ~1989.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3062
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: January 20, 2018, 03:57:41 PM
Re: California
« Reply #123 on: September 07, 2016, 11:43:13 PM »

Thanks, Dan & Jason, for the info.  According to Dan's info on the commission date of LRN 71-72-73 (1931, with full route codification in 1935), Jason's Oregon timeline dovetails right into that scenario, with the full paving of the Gold Beach - state line section occurring in 1932; LRN 71/US 101 was, more or less, there to meet it.  LRN 1/US 199's completion a few years earlier also makes sense;  Oregon would benefit, commerce-wise, from California redwood lumber being either milled and/or loaded onto railcars at Grants Pass or Medford, so expediting that coastal outlet would connect two areas with a mutual interest.
Logged

JasonOfORoads

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 190
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Portland, OR
  • Last Login: January 19, 2018, 08:13:29 PM
    • ORoads: The Roads of Oregon
Re: California
« Reply #124 on: September 08, 2016, 01:55:15 AM »

LRN 1/US 199's completion a few years earlier also makes sense;  Oregon would benefit, commerce-wise, from California redwood lumber being either milled and/or loaded onto railcars at Grants Pass or Medford, so expediting that coastal outlet would connect two areas with a mutual interest.

Oh that's very true. Also, on the recreational front, touring in cars was very popular in those days, and Oregon likely wanted to get coastal drivers to its new paved Pacific Highway traversing the backbone of the state. At least, that's the impression I'm getting from Oregonian articles at the time.
Logged
Borderline addicted to roadgeeking since ~1989.

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.