LRN 172 and planned US 60 on the Pomona Freeway

[Max Rockatansky]

Apparently, the Pomona Freeway was indeed conceived as a realignment of US 60 before the highway was truncated in 1965.  All the same, LRN 172 was a bizarre routing that never had much done with it until the Pomona Freeway started breaking ground:

"Legislative Route Number 172 was a highway located in the Los Angeles area which was added to the State Highway System during 1933.  Legislative Route Number 172 was initially intended to connect from Boyle Avenue in downtown Los Angeles east to Legislative Route Number 19 near Walnut Station.  As originally conceived the planned routing of Legislative Route Number 172 would never be constructed from San Gabriel Boulevard east to Anaheim Puente Road.  During the early 1950s through to the early 1960s the corridor was consolidated into the initial planned 30.6 miles of the Pomona Freeway.  The Pomona Freeway between Los Angeles and Pomona in the lead up to the 1964 State Highway Renumbering was announced as a realignment of US Route 60.  Following US Route 60 being truncated to Blythe during 1965 the Pomona Freeway would become part of California State Route 60. 

Legislative Route Number 172 can be seen as the blog cover crossing a timber truss bridge over the Rio Hondo River during 1938.  Legislative Route Number 172 can be seen as below as it was displayed on the 1938 Division of Highways Map."

https://www.gribblenation.org/2023/10/legislative-route-number-172-future.html

[mrsman]

I've said it before, so I'll say it again.

US 60 should not have been decommissioned in CA.

I understand the need for removing a lot of the US highways in 1964 because of the confusion of many routes at the new interchanges.  Case in point, the current 10/215 interchange had signage for 10, 395, 15E, 70, 99, 91 which had to be confusing.  US 60 would only be routed along I-10 along relatively rural parts of the state, between Beaumont and Arizona, where there would be only two highways together.  If US 60 had remained and then followed the Pomona Fwy into Downtown LA, it would highlight the Pomona Fwy as an alternate national highway.

[I also believe US 99 could have easily been kept to Wheeler Ridge.  I do agree with removing US 99 between Wheeler Ridge and Mexico.]

I also believe that if it wasnt for the interstate funding, it would be nice if Santa Monica Fwy and Pomona Fwy were the same number.  It is essentially one east-west corridor and makes more sense for travel than to have everybody connect between Santa Monica and San Bernardino via Golden State simply because people are following the 10.  If that were the case, US 60 would be literally coast to coast (going to Santa Monica and Virgina Beach!) and the section of the San Bernardino Fwy between GS and SA freeways would have a proper number (I-10) and not be an orphaned ramp, on a technical level.

[RZF]

I've said it before, so I'll say it again.

US 60 should not have been decommissioned in CA.

I understand the need for removing a lot of the US highways in 1964 because of the confusion of many routes at the new interchanges.  Case in point, the current 10/215 interchange had signage for 10, 395, 15E, 70, 99, 91 which had to be confusing.  US 60 would only be routed along I-10 along relatively rural parts of the state, between Beaumont and Arizona, where there would be only two highways together.  If US 60 had remained and then followed the Pomona Fwy into Downtown LA, it would highlight the Pomona Fwy as an alternate national highway.

[I also believe US 99 could have easily been kept to Wheeler Ridge.  I do agree with removing US 99 between Wheeler Ridge and Mexico.]

I also believe that if it wasnt for the interstate funding, it would be nice if Santa Monica Fwy and Pomona Fwy were the same number.  It is essentially one east-west corridor and makes more sense for travel than to have everybody connect between Santa Monica and San Bernardino via Golden State simply because people are following the 10.  If that were the case, US 60 would be literally coast to coast (going to Santa Monica and Virgina Beach!) and the section of the San Bernardino Fwy between GS and SA freeways would have a proper number (I-10) and not be an orphaned ramp, on a technical level.

You're absolutely right. This makes a ton of sense, as US-101 is the only US route going directly to Los Angeles (sure, US-395 skirts the High Desert, but it's still many miles away from the LA city center). I would still give I-10 the more important designation, being the high speed highway connecting motorists between LA and Phoenix.

Where US-60 meets I-10 near Brenda, AZ, I would overlap it with I-10 going west, and then I would run US-60 along AZ-95 toward Parker (replacing the route number). Then it'll jog along CA-62 for its entirety, also replacing the route number. At Whitewater, US-60/I-10 will overlap again until CA-60, where it will replace CA-60 and assume that route's entire length.

[Max Rockatansky]

Problem is that much of CA 62 of it is configured now wasn't state owned until 1970.  During said year CA 62 was extended east from Utah Trail in 29 Palms to the Arizona state line.  US 60 had been truncated to Blythe by 1965 and was more or less forgotten about until the 1980s.