AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Arroyo Seco Parkway and the early western terminus points of US 66  (Read 1108 times)

mrsman

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2203
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: Today at 02:42:25 PM
Re: Arroyo Seco Parkway and the early western terminus points of US 66
« Reply #25 on: June 07, 2019, 10:23:46 AM »



If it were indeed the case that CA 11 was along Figueroa and not Arroyo Seco, I believe that there are two reasons for this.  One, was the truck restrictions on the Arroyo Seco.  Sparker had mentioned that for a while trucks were allowed on the section of freeway between US 101 and I-5, but then had to get off onto I-5 or Figueroa.  Signing CA-11 this way would maintain signage over the truck route to Pasadena utilizing the left exit onto North Figueroa.

The existence of Alternate US 66 primarily seems to have been for that purpose too, I'm surprised it wasn't called Truck US 66 really.

North Figueroa Street and Linda Vista Ave, both former LRN 165 & SSR 11, were retained after renumbering as CA 159.  The Figueroa section was relinquished circa 1977 after the completion of the CA 2 (Glendale) freeway which connected to CA 134 (which had been completed from Glendale into Pasadena in 1971), providing a through truck-appropriate route from central L.A. to Pasadena, obviating the need to retain Figueroa (which, along with the Linda Vista portion, had never received any CA 159 reassurance signage; it was a "silent" state-maintained facility).  The Linda Vista segment remained in the state highway network until the mid-90's; rumor has it that since it ran immediately west of the Rose Bowl, some influential parties wanted it maintained as a through route (although in reality little more than a 2-lane city street, albeit with concrete pavement!).  In any case, 1976-77 also marked the completion of I-210 through Pasadena, completing what's currently in use, freeway-wise, in the immediate area. 

Since the use of "Alternate" banners was widespread statewide pre-'64 (others included Alternate US 40 & Alternate US 101), it was likely considered appropriate in this situation as well.  The only other "banner" attached to US highways in CA -- at least those retaining state maintenance -- was the "Bypass" designation, used, of course, in relation to US 101 on the S.F. peninsula as well as, for a time, around the southeast side of Sacramento as Bypass US 50 (before LRN 98 was moved to the Elvas Freeway and the 29th/30th street one-way couplet as US 99E).  But there were no commercial-traffic restrictions along either of those bypass routes (the Sacramento facility was also clearly marked as one of that city's designated pre-freeway truck routes), so it would have been unlikely that the Arroyo Seco Parkway would have been designated as "Bypass US 66".   

And the Division of Highways wasn't going to go the Kansas City route and designate a "OPTIONAL US 66"!!!!! :colorful:

I guess one had to keep track of which alternate was which. 

Alternate 66 on North Figueroa, less direct than 66 on Arroyo Seco, but it allows trucks.

Alternate 40 via Beckwourth Pass, less direct but lower elevation than 40 along Donner Pass.  Alt. 40 more likely to be open during winter.

Alternate 101 along PCH, instead of 101 through SFV and Downtown LA.  Hard to say which one would be busier with regards to traffic, but Alt 101 provides more coastal travel.


I guess for all practical purposes, CA-2 and CA-134 serve as the best truck route between LA and Pasadena.  And even though there isn't much signage about it, it seems that truck traffic from the ports are encouraged to do the following:

If coming up the 710, you can use an E-W freeway to reach I-605 and use that to reach I-210 (especially if your destination is east of the 605 or near the 605 like Arcadia and Monrovia).
Alternatively, you can take 710 to either 60 west or 10 west to reach I-5 north.  I-5 north to Sacramento or transfer to CA-2 to reach Pasadena and the 134 and 210 freeways.  The direct connection from 710 to 5 north is not recommended, since it is on the left -- most truckers use 60 to make the connection.  It is unlikely that trucks are recommended from using surface street alignments in place of the 710 gap like Fremont or Fair Oaks, but I don't believe they are prohibited.

If coming up the 110, there is signage encouraging traffic to take Santa Monica Fwy (10) east to reach I-5 north.  Of course, taking 10 east will also lead you to the Santa Ana (5), Pomona (60), and San Bernardino Fwys (10) as well.  From the I-5 Golden State Fwy, use CA-2 to reach eastern Glendale and Pasadena.

If you remain on the 110, you can transfer to US 101.  US 101 south will lead to the SB, Pomona, and Santa Ana Fwys, but other than for the SB, this would add more mileage and likely more traffic than using the Santa Monica Fwy.  No direct truck connection in East LA from 101 to the Golden State Fwy.  Likely surface street routings aren't recommended for trucks, although most big streets don't seem to prohibit trucks.  If trying to go from 101 south to I-5 north, Mission Road seems to be the most effective connector for trucks.  I-5 north to CA-2 north.

If transferring from 110 to US 101 north, you can exit on Glendale Blvd to reach CA-2.  If your destination is toward Glendale and Burbank, you can use CA-2 to I-5 north.  If your destination is north of Burbank along I-5, you can take CA-2 to I-5 or stay along US 101 to CA 170 to I-5.

Again, it is a shame that so little of this is spelled out for truckers.

 
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5597
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:33:29 PM
Re: Arroyo Seco Parkway and the early western terminus points of US 66
« Reply #26 on: June 07, 2019, 12:50:53 PM »

^^^^^^^^^^
Fortunately, Pasadena built out to its present limits relatively early; there was never much in the way of room to place extensive warehousing and distribution sites -- those have been "relegated" to more outlying areas such as the City of Industry, Irwindale, and, of course, the Inland Empire (i.e., "warehouse central", with the crux being the I-10/15 junction).   Trucks needing access to Pasadena are in all likelihood doing so for local deliveries, so there isn't the 24/7 flow in & out that is seen in the other areas; instead of dominating the freeway arteries into the area (like CA 60, for instance), anything coming from the south or southwest would simply blend into the remainder of traffic flow.  True, I-210 is used as a bypass (duh!) for commercial traffic to and from northward I-5 to the San Gabriel Valley and the Inland Empire, and that traffic can be overwhelming at times -- so possibly it might be a good thing that Pasadena has a limited requirement for commercial egress.   Yeah, access from the south sucks -- but even a completed I-710 -- if it was to have been truck-restricted as per more recent planning efforts -- might not have helped in that regard. 

As far as "spelling out" a designated truck route (possibly I-5/CA 2/CA 134), that signage would probably just get lost among the plethora of BGS's already located along that composite corridor -- at least on I-5; once on CA 2, just stating "TRUCK ROUTE to PASADENA USE EAST CA 134" on a roadside sign might help.  But trying to delineate the whole corridor from, say, the ELA interchange might be just "piling on" the present directional aids.  For now, depending upon truckers' common sense (and the ability to read a map or correctly work their GPS) may well have to suffice.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 8753
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 02:35:24 PM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: Arroyo Seco Parkway and the early western terminus points of US 66
« Reply #27 on: June 07, 2019, 12:56:33 PM »

Back onto the Fourth Figueroa Street Tunnel really quick.  I don't know why I didn't check California Highways but I'm glad that I did today.  Daniel has a photo of the fourth tunnel being constructed with US 66/99 and CA 11 shields in front of it.  The photo is facing southbound towards the fourth tunnel.

https://www.cahighways.org/105-112.html#110

GaryA

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15
  • Location: Camarillo, CA
  • Last Login: June 15, 2019, 10:25:07 PM
Re: Arroyo Seco Parkway and the early western terminus points of US 66
« Reply #28 on: June 07, 2019, 07:28:51 PM »

Since the topic of older LA->Pasadena routes has arisen, is Marmion Way significant at all? 

It exists in several different pieces, generally follows the railroad tracks, and could be envisioned as connecting the remaining segments of Pasadena Ave.

It's easy to imagine that this was the older route, bypassed when Pasadena/Figueroa was constructed to straighten out (and widen?) the route, but can anyone confirm (or refute) that?
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5597
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:33:29 PM
Re: Arroyo Seco Parkway and the early western terminus points of US 66
« Reply #29 on: June 07, 2019, 10:14:16 PM »

Since the topic of older LA->Pasadena routes has arisen, is Marmion Way significant at all? 

It exists in several different pieces, generally follows the railroad tracks, and could be envisioned as connecting the remaining segments of Pasadena Ave.

It's easy to imagine that this was the older route, bypassed when Pasadena/Figueroa was constructed to straighten out (and widen?) the route, but can anyone confirm (or refute) that?

Marmion Way, originally the service route for the adjacent Santa Fe rail line, may have at one time been part of a series of streets that were used to access Pasadena from central L.A. or vice-versa, but there was never any state maintenance of that road.  It's a distinct possibility that the section of North Figueroa from San Fernando Road to just before Pasadena Ave. may have been Marmion at some point, since the original name of Figueroa northeast of there was Pasadena Ave. (as an extension of the present street) -- and the at-grade rail crossing of Figueroa at a sharp angle lies between where Marmion veers off to the northeast on the north side of the tracks.  Alternately, Pasadena Ave. merged onto North Figueroa on the south side; the angle was sharp enough so there wasn't any direct access from NE-bound Pasadena to NE-bound Marmion.  I remember those intersections as a kid (my grandfather's house was accessed via Marmion); they were particularly nasty, seeing as how they were fouled regularly by trains.  It's probably likely that they were originally two separate streets on either side of the tracks and only connected via the grade crossing when the through route was shifted north to go through the Figueroa Tunnels after 1931 (may have to do some research about that) -- possibly correlated to when LRN 165 was commissioned in '33.     
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 8753
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 02:35:24 PM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3610
  • Last Login: Today at 01:02:15 PM
Re: Arroyo Seco Parkway and the early western terminus points of US 66
« Reply #31 on: June 10, 2019, 01:55:29 PM »

The finished product is up on Gribblenation:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/06/the-arroyo-seco-parkway-and-early.html

One of the little research nuggets you found in that - at the same time US 66 was extended to Route 2 (October 1935), two other state highway changes were noted then: the switchover from Route 440 to (modern) Route 44, the extension of Route 24 out of its grid spot (over what is now Route 70 and would be at one point Alternate US 40) and onto what is modern day Route 160, Route 242, and the remaining modern portion of Route 24 in Oakland (plus part of today's Route 13), and...the creation of Route 21!  I don't think we had a definitive timeline before for the 24 extension or for the start of 21's existence before.

As for the Harbor Freeway between US 101 and I-10 itself, while not part of the official Interstate 110 route as far as I know, southbound it is signed 75% as such (and is signed as Interstate off of US 101 at the Four Level) dating back to the 1980s and currently affirmed by post-2010 signage updates.  The northernmost part of the northbound route to have an interstate shield was right before the James M. Wood exit ca. 2014., I'll have to see in a few weeks if it is still there.   (There's even a music video from a Korean pop group around that time showing I-110 signage within the downtown core near that exit)

This weird "signed as Interstate but not officially in interstate system" status is actually pretty similar to I-80's odd situation in SF, where its interstate mileage between US 101 and the former I-480 interchange was rescinded as part of California's reassignment of interstate mileage from canceled SF projects (480, 280 along Route 1, 80 west to Golden Gate Park) to the Century Freeway/I-105 project in 1968; a similar thing occurred when the San Bernardino Freeway west of I-5 and the Santa Ana Freeway from the East Los Angeles Interchange to the San Bernardino Split lost their unsigned 3di numbers that existed from 1965 to that point.  In both the Harbor Freeway and San Francisco Skyway cases, both routes were built before the Interstate system, though the Skyway was signed as an interstate in the 1960s and retained that signage after losing its status, while the downtown LA portion of the Harbor Freeway gained southbound Interstate signage in the 1980s.A

The sign here:
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vwWL-KEdiMA/XP59BmumumI/AAAAAAAAgqA/utvLp7kRDzcsugaeY-J-bNwQX0LoMSiSgCLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_0533.JPG

Is mostly well known for the "guerilla" modification on its predecessor that was done by an artist, to improve signage to I-5:
https://ankrom.org/freeway_signs.html


IIRC Casey Cooper's website has some neat photos of when US 6 and US 66 were signed off of US 101 in the early 1960s:
http://gbcnet.com/ushighways/
« Last Edit: June 10, 2019, 02:11:35 PM by TheStranger »
Logged
Chris Sampang

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 8753
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 02:35:24 PM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: Arroyo Seco Parkway and the early western terminus points of US 66
« Reply #32 on: June 10, 2019, 05:55:29 PM »

I completely forgot about the guy who did the rogue I-5 shield install onto CA 110 north at the Four Level Interchange.  Suffice to say that Caltrans obviously didnít disagree with the signage change he made.  Does anyone know if he was actually prosecuted or if anything happened after the sign install?  Nonetheless I thought the effort to recreate a button copy shield and accessory signage was pretty damn amusing considering it used Caltrans design. 

To your point that October 1935 Public Works document essentially was the missing link for a lot of the early Signed Highway era questions that were out there.  Really that whole shirt period immediately after the State was allowed to adopt urban Highways might be just as interesting the 64 renumbering era. 

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3610
  • Last Login: Today at 01:02:15 PM
Re: Arroyo Seco Parkway and the early western terminus points of US 66
« Reply #33 on: June 10, 2019, 08:13:01 PM »

I completely forgot about the guy who did the rogue I-5 shield install onto CA 110 north at the Four Level Interchange.  Suffice to say that Caltrans obviously didnít disagree with the signage change he made.  Does anyone know if he was actually prosecuted or if anything happened after the sign install?  Nonetheless I thought the effort to recreate a button copy shield and accessory signage was pretty damn amusing considering it used Caltrans design. 

https://abc7.com/society/las-stealthy-freeway-sign-artist-still-up-to-his-old-tricks/2978744/ notes the Ankrom sign mod lasted for 8 years, before being replaced by the state-issued reflective sheeting that uses his same format now.

To your point that October 1935 Public Works document essentially was the missing link for a lot of the early Signed Highway era questions that were out there.  Really that whole shirt period immediately after the State was allowed to adopt urban Highways might be just as interesting the 64 renumbering era. 

I almost feel like 1934-1937 was an extremely fluid period that began with the initial 1934 numbering and ended with the creation of Route 107.  You have some really short-lived things (Route 13 along the later 1936-1984 Route 17, Route 740, Route 7 north of Inyokern, State Route 95, Route 3 along the Pacific Coast Highway), some thought at the time to maintaining the "every four digits" numbering system (Route 21 as noted earlier), and some routes that ended up lasting nearly unchanged to present (Route 180).  Obviously the original 24 was a very grid-correct route, before ending up confined to the East Bay after 1964 - one could argue that the 24 extension south and west past Sacramento was the first time that the numbering system was really stretched past the grid limits.
Logged
Chris Sampang

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 8753
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 02:35:24 PM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: Arroyo Seco Parkway and the early western terminus points of US 66
« Reply #34 on: June 10, 2019, 08:56:32 PM »

There seems to have been some intentional fluidity to some of the numbering conventions like having a split CA 7 through Nevada and CA 440.  I really think the Department of Public Works was banking on adding as many US Route designations as possible which ultimately ended up happening.  The fascinating thing for me is the almost universal departure in big cities from what was the established right of way that was being signed by the ACSC/CSAA.  Conceptually it seems bizarre to think that legislative action was needed to allow the State to use funds for highways in cities.  The highway system prior to 1933 as far as state maintenance was mostly rural and focused on traditional corridors travel that were well established as through routes by the late 19th Century.  I suppose thatís why I find California interesting in that the highway system was born out of what were wagon roads largely and took until the 1930s to fully emulate what other states were doing.  1934 is a seriously long time for a state the size of California to get on board with a State Highway network. 

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 8753
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 02:35:24 PM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: Arroyo Seco Parkway and the early western terminus points of US 66
« Reply #35 on: June 10, 2019, 09:31:34 PM »

Found the old Guerrilla Public Service video regarding the I-5 north shield on the CA 110 assembly at the Four Level Interchange:

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3610
  • Last Login: Today at 01:02:15 PM
Re: Arroyo Seco Parkway and the early western terminus points of US 66
« Reply #36 on: June 11, 2019, 02:30:28 AM »

There seems to have been some intentional fluidity to some of the numbering conventions like having a split CA 7 through Nevada and CA 440.  I really think the Department of Public Works was banking on adding as many US Route designations as possible which ultimately ended up happening.  The fascinating thing for me is the almost universal departure in big cities from what was the established right of way that was being signed by the ACSC/CSAA.  Conceptually it seems bizarre to think that legislative action was needed to allow the State to use funds for highways in cities.  The highway system prior to 1933 as far as state maintenance was mostly rural and focused on traditional corridors travel that were well established as through routes by the late 19th Century.  I suppose thatís why I find California interesting in that the highway system was born out of what were wagon roads largely and took until the 1930s to fully emulate what other states were doing.  1934 is a seriously long time for a state the size of California to get on board with a State Highway network. 

Either on Wikipedia or here, I recall reading that some states have state highway numbers in use since the 1910s!  And California's numbering occurred a full 8 years after the US highway system was established.

What is harder to really find info on is...how well that US highway system was signed in the 1928-1934 period before the state route system was established here, particularly routes that only existed pre-1934 (US 99E/W near Modesto, US 101E/W in the Bay Area).  Even thinking about the post-1934 history, it's striking how few Alternate US routes have ever existed in this state:

Alternate US 101 (El Camino Real in the Bay Area, 1936-1938)
Alternate US 101 (former Route 3 on PCH, now Route 1, 1936-1964)
Alternate US 40 (modern Route 113, Route 99, Route 70, the latter of which was former Route 24, 1954-1964)
Alternate US 66 (Figueroa Street/Colorado Boulevard along Route 11 and Route 134, 1957-1964)
Alternate US 50 (El Dorado County, 1998-present but only signed in inclement weather if I recall correctly)

I still think it would be interesting to find out who exactly was involved in the route grid creation in 1934 - that 1935 California public works post does suggest that the sign numbers were already of some importance and were being determined by the state and not CSAA/ACSC, especially factoring that 21 was unused in the initial numbering but slotted perfectly with the Bay Area part of the grid in 1935.
Logged
Chris Sampang

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5597
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:33:29 PM
Re: Arroyo Seco Parkway and the early western terminus points of US 66
« Reply #37 on: June 11, 2019, 04:53:15 AM »

^^^^^^^^^^
Considering the overall mileage of the state highway system (post about 1936 or so), the percentage that were US highways was relatively small compared with states from the Midwest east -- the western states always had topology and, until post-Dust Bowl years, were relatively isolated, with a few -- mostly coastal or nearly so -- population enclaves.  There just wasn't the need nor the opportunity for the redundancy found with US routes farther east.  US highways entering CA, even at the post-WWII system peak, were limited by topology as well as the scarcity of population center in the mountain states with which to connect.  The majority of those that did cross into CA did so accompanying railroad lines (e.g., UP/the old LA&SL along US 91, Santa Fe along US 66, SP along US 40, 80, 97, and 99, and even the narrow-gauge Carson & Colorado along US 6).   The Division of Highways was equally apt to request 3dus numbers for intrastate (or near-intrastate) facilities like US 299, US 399, and US 466 in place of "alternate" routes, which tended to come along later and used for specific purposes, like Alternate US 101 (replacing the original SSR 3) in SoCal -- specifically designed to divert US 101 traffic to beach communities where the recreational-minded could and did spend their money.  Alternate 66 was, as described upthread, a commercial alternative for the restricted Arroyo Seco Parkway, while Alternate 40 was commissioned rather late in the game as a response to the severe winters of 1951-52 that blocked the higher-elevation Sierra passes for weeks at a time.

A case could be made that the U.S. highways in CA served a somewhat "populist" agenda -- intended not only to connect the state's population centers but also to funnel both tourist and migratory traffic to specific areas -- such as US 399 functioning (albeit indirectly) as a corridor from the Valley to the largely recreational Santa Barbara coast (but as a distinctly challenging ride).  The westernmost section of US 466 might have been more useful if not for the Divisions' insistence on dragging it down LRN 125 from Cholame to Atascadero rather than directly to Paso Robles on LRN 33 as was done after 1957 (and should have been done decades previously).  Again, funneling recreational traffic from the agricultural center of the state to the coast (Morro Bay being arguably a more attractive destination than SLO in the early years, with Morro Rock appearing on endless postcards!).  Likewise US 199 funneling OR-originating traffic over to US 101 for the "redwood experience" found along the Avenue of the Giants.  And I for one am surprised that the Division didn't snag one of the discarded Midwest 2dus designations (like US 32 or 38) for US 299 in the mid-30's.

The '34 grid creation was, considering the topologies encountered as well of the post-'33 urban route concentrations, a relatively effective way to lay out the state's routes.  Why it was functionally discarded in '64 rather than expounded upon (as was very possible!) is a mystery possibly contained within the minutes of the Division's 1963 meetings that ended up being what was placed into the field the following year -- CH&PW only reported the final results, not the deliberations leading up to such.  Again, to be a fly on those walls!   
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3610
  • Last Login: Today at 01:02:15 PM
Re: Arroyo Seco Parkway and the early western terminus points of US 66
« Reply #38 on: June 11, 2019, 01:09:06 PM »

^^^^^^^^^^
Considering the overall mileage of the state highway system (post about 1936 or so), the percentage that were US highways was relatively small compared with states from the Midwest east -- the western states always had topology and, until post-Dust Bowl years, were relatively isolated, with a few -- mostly coastal or nearly so -- population enclaves.  There just wasn't the need nor the opportunity for the redundancy found with US routes farther east.  US highways entering CA, even at the post-WWII system peak, were limited by topology as well as the scarcity of population center in the mountain states with which to connect.  The majority of those that did cross into CA did so accompanying railroad lines (e.g., UP/the old LA&SL along US 91, Santa Fe along US 66, SP along US 40, 80, 97, and 99, and even the narrow-gauge Carson & Colorado along US 6).   The Division of Highways was equally apt to request 3dus numbers for intrastate (or near-intrastate) facilities like US 299, US 399, and US 466 in place of "alternate" routes, which tended to come along later and used for specific purposes, like Alternate US 101 (replacing the original SSR 3) in SoCal -- specifically designed to divert US 101 traffic to beach communities where the recreational-minded could and did spend their money.  Alternate 66 was, as described upthread, a commercial alternative for the restricted Arroyo Seco Parkway, while Alternate 40 was commissioned rather late in the game as a response to the severe winters of 1951-52 that blocked the higher-elevation Sierra passes for weeks at a time.

We did have a few Bypass US routes but still fewer than other states:

Bypass US 101 (Bayshore corridor, 1938-1964)
Bypass US 101, Southern California (Santa Ana Freeway plus the Firestone Boulevard/Manchester Avenue corridor/former Route 10 east of Norwalk, 1946-1956?)
Bypass US 50 (14th Avenue and 65th Street, Sacramento, 1940s to about 1964)

A case could be made that the U.S. highways in CA served a somewhat "populist" agenda -- intended not only to connect the state's population centers but also to funnel both tourist and migratory traffic to specific areas -- such as US 399 functioning (albeit indirectly) as a corridor from the Valley to the largely recreational Santa Barbara coast (but as a distinctly challenging ride).  The westernmost section of US 466 might have been more useful if not for the Divisions' insistence on dragging it down LRN 125 from Cholame to Atascadero rather than directly to Paso Robles on LRN 33 as was done after 1957 (and should have been done decades previously).  Again, funneling recreational traffic from the agricultural center of the state to the coast (Morro Bay being arguably a more attractive destination than SLO in the early years, with Morro Rock appearing on endless postcards!).  Likewise US 199 funneling OR-originating traffic over to US 101 for the "redwood experience" found along the Avenue of the Giants.  And I for one am surprised that the Division didn't snag one of the discarded Midwest 2dus designations (like US 32 or 38) for US 299 in the mid-30's.

The US 50 extension to San Francisco via former US 99W, US 48 and US 101E seems to fit this too - more of a "let's get San Francisco a second major route" thing rather than a functional corridor anyone would use between the Bay Area and Sacramento.  In some respects it is similar to how US 80 took a more indirect route in Arizona than I-8, though 80's old route along today's I-8 and AZ 85 does reflect San Diego-Phoenix traffic patterns a bit.

US 50 itself going north and west to go "eastbound" from Elk Grove to midtown Sacramento just to reach the state capitol also had very little navigational value!  It was only when freeway construction commenced that 50 ended up using the most direct route along US 99 (today's South Sacramento Freeway) and US 99E (later I-80 and now Business 80) before rejoining the Folsom Boulevard corridor.
The '34 grid creation was, considering the topologies encountered as well of the post-'33 urban route concentrations, a relatively effective way to lay out the state's routes.  Why it was functionally discarded in '64 rather than expounded upon (as was very possible!) is a mystery possibly contained within the minutes of the Division's 1963 meetings that ended up being what was placed into the field the following year -- CH&PW only reported the final results, not the deliberations leading up to such.  Again, to be a fly on those walls!   

Seems like a lot of 1964 came down to "let's just use as many unused route numbers as possible and sometimes shove a few in the same range in the same area"; there were already some examples of the grid being ignored before the 1961-1962 period when Route 84 was created (specifically when former Route 10 became Route 42).  But if the goal in 1964 was to make sure most routes were signed, I feel from the start the 164/19 deal kinda undermined that.
Logged
Chris Sampang

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5597
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:33:29 PM
Re: Arroyo Seco Parkway and the early western terminus points of US 66
« Reply #39 on: June 11, 2019, 05:25:48 PM »

^^^^^^^
Yeah, after the '64 renumbering, there were certainly "clusters" of numbers; a lot of the '80's ended up somewhere around the Bay Area (80 grandfathered in, 82, 84, 85, and 87), while most of the 70's, save 70 and 77, stuck to the original plan in SoCal (with 72 and 73 added to the mix).  I have the feeling that the Division gave up the ghost on the original grid once the Interstates started being signed; since the I-routes tended to overlay US routes -- particularly on the already multi-route passages into greater L.A. (60/70/99 over San Gorgonio Pass and 66/91/395 over Cajon), they simply became overwhelmed and in '63 decided to go in an entirely opposite direction -- the infamous "one road/one number" dictum, manifested the following year.  Interestingly, it wasn't until about 1967 that they started field-signing most of the previously unsigned state routes -- particularly in the San Joaquin/Sacramento Valleys and the east slope of the Sierra -- routes that probably didn't have enough traffic to warrant signage pre-renumbering, but which were "just sitting there"; somehow a decision was made around that time to actually sign everything under state maintenance -- urban and rural. 

The 164/19 "deal" was an artifact of the planned but never built Rosemead Freeway, which diverged from I-605 north of Whittier, passed through Whittier Narrows, and would have paralleled Rosemead Blvd. (old LRN 168/SSR 19) north to I-210 at the east end of Pasadena.  IMO, that would have been as useful as the I-710 extension, since it would have "cut the corner" allowing traffic to access Pasadena directly rather than the current out-of-the-way slog through Duarte (I-210/605 interchange).  But NIMBYs in Rosemead and Temple City doomed any chance of that route being adopted; it always remained a generalized line on the map.  That facility was given the number CA 164; it was differentiated from CA 19, a route that never saw an inch of freeway proposed for its particular routing.  In fact the legal definition of CA 19 ended at the Whittier Narrows dam (or an intersection near it), with CA 164 legally routed over Rosemead north of there.  Of course, absent the freeway connection from I-605 over to Rosemead through the Whittier Narrows recreational area (the connector's traversal of which also fomented opposition to the freeway in general), the Division, and later Caltrans, simply decided to keep the longstanding CA 19 field designation going over Rosemead all the way into Pasadena.  Laughably, back around 1970 a crew replacing signage at the Rosemead Blvd interchanges with both CA 60 and I-10 erected trailblazer small green signs referring to CA 164 rather than CA 19 (someone got a little literal-minded!); that signage lasted until late '72 or early '73 before it was corrected.  But while it will likely never be adopted much less constructed, the CA 164 freeway remains on the books (for some reason it survived the late '70's chopping block!); as long as it's legally there, the 164/19 dichotomy will persist.
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3610
  • Last Login: Today at 01:02:15 PM
Re: Arroyo Seco Parkway and the early western terminus points of US 66
« Reply #40 on: June 11, 2019, 05:35:55 PM »


The 164/19 "deal" was an artifact of the planned but never built Rosemead Freeway, which diverged from I-605 north of Whittier, passed through Whittier Narrows, and would have paralleled Rosemead Blvd. (old LRN 168/SSR 19) north to I-210 at the east end of Pasadena.  IMO, that would have been as useful as the I-710 extension, since it would have "cut the corner" allowing traffic to access Pasadena directly rather than the current out-of-the-way slog through Duarte (I-210/605 interchange).  But NIMBYs in Rosemead and Temple City doomed any chance of that route being adopted; it always remained a generalized line on the map.  That facility was given the number CA 164; it was differentiated from CA 19, a route that never saw an inch of freeway proposed for its particular routing.  In fact the legal definition of CA 19 ended at the Whittier Narrows dam (or an intersection near it), with CA 164 legally routed over Rosemead north of there.  Of course, absent the freeway connection from I-605 over to Rosemead through the Whittier Narrows recreational area (the connector's traversal of which also fomented opposition to the freeway in general), the Division, and later Caltrans, simply decided to keep the longstanding CA 19 field designation going over Rosemead all the way into Pasadena.  Laughably, back around 1970 a crew replacing signage at the Rosemead Blvd interchanges with both CA 60 and I-10 erected trailblazer small green signs referring to CA 164 rather than CA 19 (someone got a little literal-minded!); that signage lasted until late '72 or early '73 before it was corrected.  But while it will likely never be adopted much less constructed, the CA 164 freeway remains on the books (for some reason it survived the late '70's chopping block!); as long as it's legally there, the 164/19 dichotomy will persist.

If only there were photos of those 164 signs!

One key thing that the 1935 blurb that Max found earlier makes me wonder:  When 21/440/24 extension were established then, it seemed like this was a decision made by the then-California Department of Highways, and NOT as a legislative action.  Was turning signed route numbering into a legislative process just a side effect of switching over the then-existing hidden Legislative Route Number system with using the sign routes?  I do think the weirdness of relinquishment and the odd inflexibility of route realignment are direct results of this, as opposed to the navigational focus of the original 1934 grid.
Logged
Chris Sampang

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 8753
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 02:35:24 PM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: Arroyo Seco Parkway and the early western terminus points of US 66
« Reply #41 on: June 11, 2019, 06:14:16 PM »


The 164/19 "deal" was an artifact of the planned but never built Rosemead Freeway, which diverged from I-605 north of Whittier, passed through Whittier Narrows, and would have paralleled Rosemead Blvd. (old LRN 168/SSR 19) north to I-210 at the east end of Pasadena.  IMO, that would have been as useful as the I-710 extension, since it would have "cut the corner" allowing traffic to access Pasadena directly rather than the current out-of-the-way slog through Duarte (I-210/605 interchange).  But NIMBYs in Rosemead and Temple City doomed any chance of that route being adopted; it always remained a generalized line on the map.  That facility was given the number CA 164; it was differentiated from CA 19, a route that never saw an inch of freeway proposed for its particular routing.  In fact the legal definition of CA 19 ended at the Whittier Narrows dam (or an intersection near it), with CA 164 legally routed over Rosemead north of there.  Of course, absent the freeway connection from I-605 over to Rosemead through the Whittier Narrows recreational area (the connector's traversal of which also fomented opposition to the freeway in general), the Division, and later Caltrans, simply decided to keep the longstanding CA 19 field designation going over Rosemead all the way into Pasadena.  Laughably, back around 1970 a crew replacing signage at the Rosemead Blvd interchanges with both CA 60 and I-10 erected trailblazer small green signs referring to CA 164 rather than CA 19 (someone got a little literal-minded!); that signage lasted until late '72 or early '73 before it was corrected.  But while it will likely never be adopted much less constructed, the CA 164 freeway remains on the books (for some reason it survived the late '70's chopping block!); as long as it's legally there, the 164/19 dichotomy will persist.

If only there were photos of those 164 signs!

One key thing that the 1935 blurb that Max found earlier makes me wonder:  When 21/440/24 extension were established then, it seemed like this was a decision made by the then-California Department of Highways, and NOT as a legislative action.  Was turning signed route numbering into a legislative process just a side effect of switching over the then-existing hidden Legislative Route Number system with using the sign routes?  I do think the weirdness of relinquishment and the odd inflexibility of route realignment are direct results of this, as opposed to the navigational focus of the original 1934 grid.

I could be wrong but I donít believe the Legislative Route Numbers ever had anything pre-renumbering in their legislative description that dictated what they would be signed as.  Daniel probably could elaborate more on what the legislative minutes used to say regarding the matter. 

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2633
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 49
  • Last Login: Today at 10:20:26 AM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: Arroyo Seco Parkway and the early western terminus points of US 66
« Reply #42 on: June 11, 2019, 08:59:59 PM »

There seems to have been some intentional fluidity to some of the numbering conventions like having a split CA 7 through Nevada and CA 440.  I really think the Department of Public Works was banking on adding as many US Route designations as possible which ultimately ended up happening.  The fascinating thing for me is the almost universal departure in big cities from what was the established right of way that was being signed by the ACSC/CSAA.  Conceptually it seems bizarre to think that legislative action was needed to allow the State to use funds for highways in cities.  The highway system prior to 1933 as far as state maintenance was mostly rural and focused on traditional corridors travel that were well established as through routes by the late 19th Century.  I suppose thatís why I find California interesting in that the highway system was born out of what were wagon roads largely and took until the 1930s to fully emulate what other states were doing.  1934 is a seriously long time for a state the size of California to get on board with a State Highway network. 

Either on Wikipedia or here, I recall reading that some states have state highway numbers in use since the 1910s!  And California's numbering occurred a full 8 years after the US highway system was established.

What is harder to really find info on is...how well that US highway system was signed in the 1928-1934 period before the state route system was established here, particularly routes that only existed pre-1934 (US 99E/W near Modesto, US 101E/W in the Bay Area).  Even thinking about the post-1934 history, it's striking how few Alternate US routes have ever existed in this state:

Alternate US 101 (El Camino Real in the Bay Area, 1936-1938)
Alternate US 101 (former Route 3 on PCH, now Route 1, 1936-1964)
Alternate US 40 (modern Route 113, Route 99, Route 70, the latter of which was former Route 24, 1954-1964)
Alternate US 66 (Figueroa Street/Colorado Boulevard along Route 11 and Route 134, 1957-1964)
Alternate US 50 (El Dorado County, 1998-present but only signed in inclement weather if I recall correctly)

I still think it would be interesting to find out who exactly was involved in the route grid creation in 1934 - that 1935 California public works post does suggest that the sign numbers were already of some importance and were being determined by the state and not CSAA/ACSC, especially factoring that 21 was unused in the initial numbering but slotted perfectly with the Bay Area part of the grid in 1935.

I have specific information on us route posting in California but cannot access it from the road. I will post it when I return next week or you can find it in reply 16 on the thread regarding us 48 and us 50. Incidentally I donít think us 48 was posted.
Logged
Clinch:
I: 4 8 12 16 17 20 26 27 30 40 59 64 66 68 72 73 ew74 77 78 79 82 83 ew84 85 ew86 e88 97 99
US: 4 6N 9W 11E 11W 13 15 19W 21 44 46 48 58 72 92 113 117 123 130 158 163 176 178 192 206 209 211 219 220 221 222 258 264 276 290 311 319 322 340 360 378 401 ew422 501 521 522 601 701
PriSys: VA, DE

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 8753
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 02:35:24 PM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: Arroyo Seco Parkway and the early western terminus points of US 66
« Reply #43 on: June 12, 2019, 12:36:03 AM »

Does anyone actually know if photos of US 48 signed in-field actually exists?  Iíve never seen a photo of a US 48 shield that was actually mounted on a sign assembly. 

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5597
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:33:29 PM
Re: Arroyo Seco Parkway and the early western terminus points of US 66
« Reply #44 on: June 12, 2019, 12:58:34 AM »

I could be wrong but I donít believe the Legislative Route Numbers ever had anything pre-renumbering in their legislative description that dictated what they would be signed as.  Daniel probably could elaborate more on what the legislative minutes used to say regarding the matter. 

You aren't wrong; up to 1964 the only numbers that were legislatively "vetted" (more like "sign here" for routes submitted by the Division) were LRN's.   SSR's were decided jointly by the various districts and/or HQ in Sacramento; the decision to number and what the number would be could be initiated at either level; as long as Sacramento signed off on the decision.  That's one of the reasons why so many Valley connecting routes went unsigned until '64; the district offices didn't think overall navigation could be helped by signing certain routes -- and they didn't want to spend any additional manpower to post and maintain signage than was absolutely necessary.  Of course AASHTO (and its single-A predecessor) had something to say regarding US highways -- but for SSR's, it was solely at the discretion of the Division of Highways.

Of course, since 1964 all state highways are legislatively designated (and relinquished!), regardless of shield type!
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3610
  • Last Login: Today at 01:02:15 PM
Re: Arroyo Seco Parkway and the early western terminus points of US 66
« Reply #45 on: June 12, 2019, 02:41:03 AM »

I could be wrong but I donít believe the Legislative Route Numbers ever had anything pre-renumbering in their legislative description that dictated what they would be signed as.  Daniel probably could elaborate more on what the legislative minutes used to say regarding the matter. 

You aren't wrong; up to 1964 the only numbers that were legislatively "vetted" (more like "sign here" for routes submitted by the Division) were LRN's.   SSR's were decided jointly by the various districts and/or HQ in Sacramento; the decision to number and what the number would be could be initiated at either level; as long as Sacramento signed off on the decision.  That's one of the reasons why so many Valley connecting routes went unsigned until '64; the district offices didn't think overall navigation could be helped by signing certain routes -- and they didn't want to spend any additional manpower to post and maintain signage than was absolutely necessary.  Of course AASHTO (and its single-A predecessor) had something to say regarding US highways -- but for SSR's, it was solely at the discretion of the Division of Highways.

Of course, since 1964 all state highways are legislatively designated (and relinquished!), regardless of shield type!

In that vein, it's interesting to think of some of the biggest wholesale pre-1964 changes that happened rather quickly: 13 becoming 17 (though was 13 ever signed along the Oakland Road etc. corridor?), 10 becoming 42 to accommodate I-10, things like that - in comparison to the 20+ years it has taken for Route 210 east of San Dimas to finally be part of a unified I-210, even though that freeway has been pretty complete for quite some time now.
Logged
Chris Sampang

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5597
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:33:29 PM
Re: Arroyo Seco Parkway and the early western terminus points of US 66
« Reply #46 on: June 12, 2019, 05:20:44 AM »

^^^^^^^^^
Re the 210 freeway:  some of the older 4-lane (2+2) sections of the E-W portion in San Bernardino did have, at least the last time I used that facility back in 2012, substandard inner shoulders, well under the minimum 4-foot system criterion.  That portion dated from the late '60's and early '70's; the newer section that included the CA 330 interchange, the Santa Ana River bridge, and the I-10 Redlands interchange, opened in early 1992 and was constructed to Interstate standards.  But with the concentration on completing the freeway from San Dimas to San Bernardino in big chunks (out to I-15 by 2002 and to I-215 in mid-2007), that older section didn't garner much attention from D8; they were more intent on fully completing the 210/215 interchange than upgrading the section east of there.  Besides the question of what to do with the chargeable former I-210 segment now signed as CA 57 (which has been cited as one possible reason for the delay/inability to deploy I-210 east of the original chargeable segment), the lack of full directional access to southward I-215 (corrected a few years back) was additionally mentioned as a rationale for non-signage.  But it appears that the final obstacle is simply that substandard section in eastern San Bernardino and Highland -- and a couple of bridges, including the Highland Ave. (old CA 30) overpass, may themselves have to be widened as well, probably by "filling in" the gap between the directional overpasses.  In any case, until these projects are let and subsequently completed, any extension of I-210 is still "on hold". 
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3610
  • Last Login: Today at 01:02:15 PM
Re: Arroyo Seco Parkway and the early western terminus points of US 66
« Reply #47 on: June 12, 2019, 11:09:39 AM »

^^^^^^^^^
Re the 210 freeway:  some of the older 4-lane (2+2) sections of the E-W portion in San Bernardino did have, at least the last time I used that facility back in 2012, substandard inner shoulders, well under the minimum 4-foot system criterion.  That portion dated from the late '60's and early '70's; the newer section that included the CA 330 interchange, the Santa Ana River bridge, and the I-10 Redlands interchange, opened in early 1992 and was constructed to Interstate standards.  But with the concentration on completing the freeway from San Dimas to San Bernardino in big chunks (out to I-15 by 2002 and to I-215 in mid-2007), that older section didn't garner much attention from D8; they were more intent on fully completing the 210/215 interchange than upgrading the section east of there.  Besides the question of what to do with the chargeable former I-210 segment now signed as CA 57 (which has been cited as one possible reason for the delay/inability to deploy I-210 east of the original chargeable segment), the lack of full directional access to southward I-215 (corrected a few years back) was additionally mentioned as a rationale for non-signage.  But it appears that the final obstacle is simply that substandard section in eastern San Bernardino and Highland -- and a couple of bridges, including the Highland Ave. (old CA 30) overpass, may themselves have to be widened as well, probably by "filling in" the gap between the directional overpasses.  In any case, until these projects are let and subsequently completed, any extension of I-210 is still "on hold". 

I do remember that remaining work in San Bernardino et. was cited in the 2018 blurb on why the eastern part of 210 is still awaiting to be fully marked out as Interstate.  It's similar to how Route 15 south of I-8 and all of Route 905 are still not signed as Interstates either (the former due to the substandard 94/15 junction, the latter due to forthcoming interchange construction) - but when something like I-80 in SF has been signed as an interstate continuously for decades (even though it may not even be part of the system technically!), it seems like these are a bit of a hangup as opposed to just focusing on navigational continuity.

Then again, California is not alone in this kinda scenario: witness how long it took for TN 840 to become I-840, and similarly how long I-295 in Fayetteville, NC has been on the back burner despite a segment existing already.  Much closer to this state, I-580 was designated for the southern US 395 freeway in Reno as far back as the 1970s, yet not signed until recent years.
Logged
Chris Sampang

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5597
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:33:29 PM
Re: Arroyo Seco Parkway and the early western terminus points of US 66
« Reply #48 on: June 12, 2019, 12:49:25 PM »

^^^^^^^^^
Re the 210 freeway:  some of the older 4-lane (2+2) sections of the E-W portion in San Bernardino did have, at least the last time I used that facility back in 2012, substandard inner shoulders, well under the minimum 4-foot system criterion.  That portion dated from the late '60's and early '70's; the newer section that included the CA 330 interchange, the Santa Ana River bridge, and the I-10 Redlands interchange, opened in early 1992 and was constructed to Interstate standards.  But with the concentration on completing the freeway from San Dimas to San Bernardino in big chunks (out to I-15 by 2002 and to I-215 in mid-2007), that older section didn't garner much attention from D8; they were more intent on fully completing the 210/215 interchange than upgrading the section east of there.  Besides the question of what to do with the chargeable former I-210 segment now signed as CA 57 (which has been cited as one possible reason for the delay/inability to deploy I-210 east of the original chargeable segment), the lack of full directional access to southward I-215 (corrected a few years back) was additionally mentioned as a rationale for non-signage.  But it appears that the final obstacle is simply that substandard section in eastern San Bernardino and Highland -- and a couple of bridges, including the Highland Ave. (old CA 30) overpass, may themselves have to be widened as well, probably by "filling in" the gap between the directional overpasses.  In any case, until these projects are let and subsequently completed, any extension of I-210 is still "on hold". 

I do remember that remaining work in San Bernardino et. was cited in the 2018 blurb on why the eastern part of 210 is still awaiting to be fully marked out as Interstate.  It's similar to how Route 15 south of I-8 and all of Route 905 are still not signed as Interstates either (the former due to the substandard 94/15 junction, the latter due to forthcoming interchange construction) - but when something like I-80 in SF has been signed as an interstate continuously for decades (even though it may not even be part of the system technically!), it seems like these are a bit of a hangup as opposed to just focusing on navigational continuity.

Then again, California is not alone in this kinda scenario: witness how long it took for TN 840 to become I-840, and similarly how long I-295 in Fayetteville, NC has been on the back burner despite a segment existing already.  Much closer to this state, I-580 was designated for the southern US 395 freeway in Reno as far back as the 1970s, yet not signed until recent years.

The solution I (and certain others) have proposed for dealing with the "orphan" chargeable section along CA 57 is simply to legislatively designate it as a different x10 3di (I-510 comes to mind) but, like I-305 in Sacramento or I-595 in MD, just don't post Interstate signage.  Keeps the segment in the system, eliminating any controversy about reimbursement of construction $$ (after 47-48 years of existence!) without disturbing the current signage, which has been there since late 2002. 
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3610
  • Last Login: Today at 01:02:15 PM
Re: Arroyo Seco Parkway and the early western terminus points of US 66
« Reply #49 on: June 12, 2019, 01:09:28 PM »


The solution I (and certain others) have proposed for dealing with the "orphan" chargeable section along CA 57 is simply to legislatively designate it as a different x10 3di (I-510 comes to mind) but, like I-305 in Sacramento or I-595 in MD, just don't post Interstate signage.  Keeps the segment in the system, eliminating any controversy about reimbursement of construction $$ (after 47-48 years of existence!) without disturbing the current signage, which has been there since late 2002. 

It's interesting to think of how we have at least two current routes not signed as Interstate but part of the system (US 50/midtown segment of Route 51, which is I-305, and Route 57 between 210 and 10/71, the old I-210) in California, and at the same time have two freeway segments that are not officially part of the system but have been signed as such for decades! (I-80 along old US 40/50 in San Francisco, I-110 along the southbound Harbor Freeway between US 101 and I-10 and the northbound portion from I-10 to James M. Wood Boulevard)

There is precedent for the latter in at least one other state (the segment of the Baltimore Beltway that is signed as I-695 but officially is MD 695).

Even in the age of GPS I still think navigational value should be the overriding factor as to how a route is signed, but obviously in real practice it doesn't always work that way out here.  Though one could argue that removing Business 80 on the US 50 segment in West Sacramento/Sacramento was done entirely for navigational reasons (with the side effect of making it slightly harder to figure out 99's northbound routing between 12th Avenue and I-5).
Logged
Chris Sampang

 


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.