Why is CA 152 not signed for Los Angeles on US 101?

[Roadgeekteen]

Was watching Control City Freak's newest video on US 101, and CA 152 to I-5 is the fastest way to get to LA from San Jose. But no sign of LA on any of the signs. To make matters worse, even from CA 152 Caltrans is telling people to get on US 101 south to go to LA instead of the fastest route which involves staying straight. One of the few examples of the fastest way being ignoring the signs.

[cahwyguy]

Was watching Control City Freak's newest video on US 101, and CA 152 to I-5 is the fastest way to get to LA from San Jose. But no sign of LA on any of the signs. To make matters worse, even from CA 152 Caltrans is telling people to get on US 101 south to go to LA instead of the fastest route which involves staying straight. One of the few examples of the fastest way being ignoring the signs.

Well, first, those things on state highways are not control cities. See https://www.cahighways.org/itypes-control.html

As for why 152 isn't signed for Los Angeles: It doesn't go to Los Angeles. Route 152 goes to Los Banos and then Chowchilla (and if fully constructed, would go to Route 65 near Sharon). See https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE152.html . That's no where near Los Angeles. As you note, to get to Los Angeles, you have to go S on I-5 or Route 99. But you might also be taking Route 152 to go somewhere else: Towards Sacramento perhaps, from the Gilroy area. To Merced. To Stockton. Even to Gustine.

[Max Rockatansky]

Subtle hint to take CA 25, CA 198 and CA 33 to get to I-5. 

Honestly if my destinations were between San Jose and Los Angeles there is a fair chance I'd stick to US 101 anyways.  Having to suffer through the West Side Freeway (I-5) and Pacheco Pass (CA 152) in a single drive is a sour proposition. 

[gonealookin]

The point about the SR 152 routing being perhaps 10% shorter in both mileage and time to LA is correct.  But I think this proposal would be an example of sacrificing simplicity in signage.  It's better to be consistent in saying that US 101 is an appropriate, direct route to LA via at minimum 4-lane expressway, mostly freeway, and let's leave it at that rather than speculating on the motorist's ultimate destination and putting up signs suggesting options that really are only marginally shorter.

[Max Rockatansky]

It isn't as though most traffic is aware that CA 152 is the marginally faster way between San Jose and Los Angeles anyways.  Unless there is a big wreck on Pacheco Pass any modern GPS software is going to pick the corridor over sticking to US 101.  Truckers definitely use Pacheco Pass far more than sticking to US 101 along the coast.

[FredAkbar]

As for why 152 isn't signed for Los Angeles: It doesn't go to Los Angeles.

If this is referring to the exit signs from 101, that argument doesn't seem particularly strong. Lots of highways are signed with a "further destination" if it's sufficiently important and commonly used.

For example, US-101S to CA-85S is signed for Cupertino and Santa Cruz (it goes nowhere near the latter). US-101N to I-680N is signed for Sacramento only; and so on. It seems like "Los Banos / Los Angeles" on the US-101S exit to CA-152E would fit the same pattern.

[Max Rockatansky]

One thing I forgot to point out about traffic heading from San Jose to I-5.  County Route G9 is the preferred cutoff between US 101 at the Leavesley Road exit for non-freight traffic.  G9 saves a bit of time between US 101 versus taking the CA 152 exit to get towards Old Gilroy.

[DTComposer]

In normal daytime traffic, CA-152/I-5 is about 45 minutes faster than US-101 between Gilroy and downtown L.A. If/when the upgrade to CA-152/CA-25 happens, you'll save an additional 10 minutes. Of course, US-101 is by far the more interesting drive.

On US-101 just south of CA-85, the mileage sign puts Los Angeles at 382 miles, which would be the US-101 route.

[cahwyguy]

As for why 152 isn't signed for Los Angeles: It doesn't go to Los Angeles.

If this is referring to the exit signs from 101, that argument doesn't seem particularly strong. Lots of highways are signed with a "further destination" if it's sufficiently important and commonly used.

For example, US-101S to CA-85S is signed for Cupertino and Santa Cruz (it goes nowhere near the latter). US-101N to I-680N is signed for Sacramento only; and so on. It seems like "Los Banos / Los Angeles" on the US-101S exit to CA-152E would fit the same pattern.

What about folks going north. There are plenty of major destinations to the north, and they are not as far away as Los Angeles is. Generally, Los Angeles is only a pull-through destination if it is the next major city in the approximately same direction. Given one has to make a major turn and drive an additional 5 hours for 152 traffic, it doesn't make sense. Whereas, for US 101, your only major cities after San Jose are SLO, Santa Barbara, and Ventura, none of which match the size of LA, and none of which were the size they were when 101 was signed.

[gonealookin]

Here's a hint about current Caltrans thinking about signing alternate routes to a destination.

On northbound US 395 in Lassen County, there used to be a sign showing that Alturas could be reached either by continuing on US 395, or turning right onto Standish Buntingville Road (Lassen County Road A3).  Here's the sign in GSV in 2015:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/71j3jTmFAW2Jkiej7

And there was a second sign that had the two mileages to Alturas:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/TFED7qvUG93UkkT49

A3 is much shorter; it rejoins US 395 at Standish after 8.5 miles, while via the US 395 routing which deviates over to near Susanville, it's 18.5 miles to Standish.  However, trucks are banned from A3 so they have to use the longer route.

Those signs were removed, and the current signage at that intersection doesn't give any indication at all that A3 is a shortcut to Alturas; it merely indicates that a right turn puts you on Standish Buntingville Road:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/aUqyogPbbKeUbBiK9

The change in the signage seems to say that Caltrans would rather not muddy the issue by pointing out alternate routes to the same destination, even though in this case taking A3 rather than US 395 cuts that part of the trip by over 50%.

[pderocco]

Here's a hint about current Caltrans thinking about signing alternate routes to a destination.

On northbound US 395 in Lassen County, there used to be a sign showing that Alturas could be reached either by continuing on US 395, or turning right onto Standish Buntingville Road (Lassen County Road A3).  Here's the sign in GSV in 2015:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/71j3jTmFAW2Jkiej7

And there was a second sign that had the two mileages to Alturas:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/TFED7qvUG93UkkT49

A3 is much shorter; it rejoins US 395 at Standish after 8.5 miles, while via the US 395 routing which deviates over to near Susanville, it's 18.5 miles to Standish.  However, trucks are banned from A3 so they have to use the longer route.

Those signs were removed, and the current signage at that intersection doesn't give any indication at all that A3 is a shortcut to Alturas; it merely indicates that a right turn puts you on Standish Buntingville Road:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/aUqyogPbbKeUbBiK9

The change in the signage seems to say that Caltrans would rather not muddy the issue by pointing out alternate routes to the same destination, even though in this case taking A3 rather than US 395 cuts that part of the trip by over 50%.

I think that's only because of the truck restriction, which would would require extra verbiage on the sign. But I'm not clear on why trucks are banned.

[SeriesE]

A TO I-5/CA-99 text would be sufficient, though I've noticed California doesn't do a lot of these TOs unlike other states.

[Max Rockatansky]

A TO I-5/CA-99 text would be sufficient, though I've noticed California doesn't do a lot of these TOs unlike other states.

Caltrans does post mileage to I-5 from along CA 152 just east of the CA 156 terminus.  It is also posted as "To I-5" on CA 156 also.

Regarding County Route A3 a couple posts up in Lassen County.  My understanding is the county road can't handle the weight of the trucks.

[DTComposer]

Caltrans does post mileage to I-5 from along CA 152 just east of the CA 156 terminus.  It is also posted as "To I-5" on CA 156 also.

They start this signing as the divided expressway section of CA-152 begins. Also note that on US-101, they don't even sign CA-152 for Fresno, even though it is the obvious route. There's only a supplemental sign for "Los Banos - next exit."

I have always thought that signing CA-152 as To I-5 or Fresno or Los Angeles would be an "endorsement" by Caltrans for drivers to take that route, and considering the substantial two-lane segment (which has been historically considered a "blood alley") they would be reticent to do so - but I may also be giving Caltrans too much credit.

[Max Rockatansky]

Caltrans does post mileage to I-5 from along CA 152 just east of the CA 156 terminus.  It is also posted as "To I-5" on CA 156 also.

They start this signing as the divided expressway section of CA-152 begins. Also note that on US-101, they don't even sign CA-152 for Fresno, even though it is the obvious route. There's only a supplemental sign for "Los Banos - next exit."

I have always thought that signing CA-152 as To I-5 or Fresno or Los Angeles would be an "endorsement" by Caltrans for drivers to take that route, and considering the substantial two-lane segment (which has been historically considered a "blood alley") they would be reticent to do so - but I may also be giving Caltrans too much credit.

Interestingly there is a sign on eastbound 152 approaching I-5 to head south for Fresno.  There another sign at Nees Avenue interchange indicating it can be used to access Fresno.  Truth be told I prefer Nees versus staying on 152 to reach but it is weird to see it in Caltrans signage.

That two-lane "Blood Alley" on 152 east of Gilroy is why I mentioned County Route G9.  Most of the problems in that segment can be avoided by taking G9 instead to Old Gilroy.  East from there to the four lane expressway most of the time 152 at least stays moving.  The next big hazard is the climb to Pacheco Pass east of Casa de Fruta.  The lack of a climbing lane for trucks causes accidents almost daily.

[GaryA]

At the 101/152 junction, the ramp from 10th St (the road that will become 152) to 101 SB is marked for "Los Angeles", when the faster route would be to continue straight onto 152.

Personally, I don't care that much -- either route will work, most CA drivers are familiar with the situation (and if not, would use a GPS these days), and I use a variety of routes for my own drives.

[jdbx]

Here's a hint about current Caltrans thinking about signing alternate routes to a destination.

On northbound US 395 in Lassen County, there used to be a sign showing that Alturas could be reached either by continuing on US 395, or turning right onto Standish Buntingville Road (Lassen County Road A3).  Here's the sign in GSV in 2015:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/71j3jTmFAW2Jkiej7

And there was a second sign that had the two mileages to Alturas:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/TFED7qvUG93UkkT49

A3 is much shorter; it rejoins US 395 at Standish after 8.5 miles, while via the US 395 routing which deviates over to near Susanville, it's 18.5 miles to Standish.  However, trucks are banned from A3 so they have to use the longer route.

Those signs were removed, and the current signage at that intersection doesn't give any indication at all that A3 is a shortcut to Alturas; it merely indicates that a right turn puts you on Standish Buntingville Road:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/aUqyogPbbKeUbBiK9

The change in the signage seems to say that Caltrans would rather not muddy the issue by pointing out alternate routes to the same destination, even though in this case taking A3 rather than US 395 cuts that part of the trip by over 50%.

I noticed a similar phenomena on CA-4 at the Cummings Skyway exit south of Crockett.  The old signage used to say "TO I-80 - Crockett / Vallejo" on it, but when the signage for this exit was replaced last year, that "TO I-80" part was removed, and the exit was simply signed "Cummings Skyway".  Cummings Skyway has plenty of truck traffic, is signed at 55 MPH, and shaves almost 4 miles off the drive if you are connecting to I-80 eastbound.  Signing it as Cummings Skyway makes sense, but I would have left the "TO I-80" legend, maybe even included "East" so that people headed towards westbound 80 did not take the exit in error.

Current Signage:  https://maps.app.goo.gl/byKbMdSdaAudzmp19
Previous Version:  https://maps.app.goo.gl/6VTvVgJquwdAMjjw8

[roadfro]

I noticed a similar phenomena on CA-4 at the Cummings Skyway exit south of Crockett.  The old signage used to say "TO I-80 - Crockett / Vallejo" on it, but when the signage for this exit was replaced last year, that "TO I-80" part was removed, and the exit was simply signed "Cummings Skyway".  Cummings Skyway has plenty of truck traffic, is signed at 55 MPH, and shaves almost 4 miles off the drive if you are connecting to I-80 eastbound.  Signing it as Cummings Skyway makes sense, but I would have left the "TO I-80" legend, maybe even included "East" so that people headed towards westbound 80 did not take the exit in error.

Current Signage:  https://maps.app.goo.gl/byKbMdSdaAudzmp19
Previous Version:  https://maps.app.goo.gl/6VTvVgJquwdAMjjw8

Relevant to another thread, but I noticed this is a case of new external exit tabs installed on an existing truss structure.

[JustDrive]

Caltrans does post mileage to I-5 from along CA 152 just east of the CA 156 terminus.  It is also posted as "To I-5" on CA 156 also.

They start this signing as the divided expressway section of CA-152 begins. Also note that on US-101, they don't even sign CA-152 for Fresno, even though it is the obvious route. There's only a supplemental sign for "Los Banos - next exit."

I have always thought that signing CA-152 as To I-5 or Fresno or Los Angeles would be an "endorsement" by Caltrans for drivers to take that route, and considering the substantial two-lane segment (which has been historically considered a "blood alley") they would be reticent to do so - but I may also be giving Caltrans too much credit.

Interestingly there is a sign on eastbound 152 approaching I-5 to head south for Fresno.  There another sign at Nees Avenue interchange indicating it can be used to access Fresno.  Truth be told I prefer Nees versus staying on 152 to reach but it is weird to see it in Caltrans signage.

That two-lane "Blood Alley" on 152 east of Gilroy is why I mentioned County Route G9.  Most of the problems in that segment can be avoided by taking G9 instead to Old Gilroy.  East from there to the four lane expressway most of the time 152 at least stays moving.  The next big hazard is the climb to Pacheco Pass east of Casa de Fruta.  The lack of a climbing lane for trucks causes accidents almost daily.

I did that drive in early December. The sign at the 152/5 interchange tells drivers to stay on 152 to get to both 99 and Fresno. 

[DTComposer]

Interestingly there is a sign on eastbound 152 approaching I-5 to head south for Fresno.  There another sign at Nees Avenue interchange indicating it can be used to access Fresno.  Truth be told I prefer Nees versus staying on 152 to reach but it is weird to see it in Caltrans signage.

I figured the Nees Avenue signage for Fresno was a nod to the implied CA-180 corridor.

That two-lane "Blood Alley" on 152 east of Gilroy is why I mentioned County Route G9.  Most of the problems in that segment can be avoided by taking G9 instead to Old Gilroy.  East from there to the four lane expressway most of the time 152 at least stays moving.  The next big hazard is the climb to Pacheco Pass east of Casa de Fruta.  The lack of a climbing lane for trucks causes accidents almost daily.

I will generally take Ferguson/Leavesley (G9) when I'm heading back from L.A. - but I have taken all manner of variants around there, and it's really just picking your poison. Over 35 years of making that drive, the only real improvement they've made between Gilroy and the Don Pacheco Y is the signal at 152 and Ferguson - and I'd actually argue that's made traffic worse (I get it from a safety perspective, though).

[Max Rockatansky]

Interestingly there is a sign on eastbound 152 approaching I-5 to head south for Fresno.  There another sign at Nees Avenue interchange indicating it can be used to access Fresno.  Truth be told I prefer Nees versus staying on 152 to reach but it is weird to see it in Caltrans signage.

I figured the Nees Avenue signage for Fresno was a nod to the implied CA-180 corridor.

That two-lane "Blood Alley" on 152 east of Gilroy is why I mentioned County Route G9.  Most of the problems in that segment can be avoided by taking G9 instead to Old Gilroy.  East from there to the four lane expressway most of the time 152 at least stays moving.  The next big hazard is the climb to Pacheco Pass east of Casa de Fruta.  The lack of a climbing lane for trucks causes accidents almost daily.

I will generally take Ferguson/Leavesley (G9) when I'm heading back from L.A. - but I have taken all manner of variants around there, and it's really just picking your poison. Over 35 years of making that drive, the only real improvement they've made between Gilroy and the Don Pacheco Y is the signal at 152 and Ferguson - and I'd actually argue that's made traffic worse (I get it from a safety perspective, though).

Actually Nees Avenue lines up far better with Aveune 7 1/2 and Aveune 7 in Madera County via Firebaugh.  There is way less traffic on Avenue 7 1/2/Avenue 7 than CA 152 or CA 180.  Usually, I break even getting to the I-5/CA 152 interchange time wise if I go through Firebaugh.

FWIW, CA 152 and Pacheco Pass have a huge Facebook dedicated to how much people hate it.  I was in the group until they banned external post sharing but they had something like 30,000 members.

[FredAkbar]

Over 35 years of making that drive, the only real improvement they've made between Gilroy and the Don Pacheco Y is the signal at 152 and Ferguson - and I'd actually argue that's made traffic worse (I get it from a safety perspective, though).

What's the green light ratio / timing between Ferguson and 152? Southbound, the Ferguson route looks easier but if you have to wait a long time at the light, it might not be worth it. Northbound, it's a right turn so not so much of an issue.

[Max Rockatansky]

Over 35 years of making that drive, the only real improvement they've made between Gilroy and the Don Pacheco Y is the signal at 152 and Ferguson - and I'd actually argue that's made traffic worse (I get it from a safety perspective, though).

What's the green light ratio / timing between Ferguson and 152? Southbound, the Ferguson route looks easier but if you have to wait a long time at the light, it might not be worth it. Northbound, it's a right turn so not so much of an issue.

You have to wait substantially longer on eastbound 152.  Traffic on G9 heading east onto 152 seems to always get the priority at the traffic signal.  The wait on eastbound 152 isn't helped by the large number of freight vehicles.  A lot of people even dip down to County Route G7 heading east to avoid the traffic light.

[DTComposer]

Prior to the signal going in, traffic on EB 152 had a protected right turn "ramp," but WB 152 traffic had to do a left turn across traffic coming from Ferguson.

https://historicaerials.com/location/37.00978178172873/-121.51564445567728/2012/18

Approaching the intersection along WB 152 in 2011:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/h27dbKPBeWXbSZWm9

[Flint1979]

Probably because it doesn't go to Los Angeles and you're going to be on CA-152 for about 40 minutes before you even get to I-5 going in a rather in direct route and Los Angeles is over 300 miles away.