Route 1/Rice Avenue in Oxnard

[pderocco]

And, once you take the Rice Ave offramp, there's nothing to tell you whether to turn left or right to reach the next segment of CA 1. Some drivers will know that CA 1 is along the coast (or at least closer to it than US 101), and that the coast is on their right, but that's not obvious.

Isn't the next Route 1 sign all the way at the Rice Avenue/Oxnard Boulevard junction?  I haven't been out there in several years but I recall that that's been the case for some time.

I do get we are in the post-highway expansion era where route relinquishments are common (thus situations like the Route 160 gap in Sacramento between Richards Boulevard and I-5/Freeport) but this Rice Avenue realignment was planned since the 1970s and enacted starting in 2009-2010, yet only got signed from US 101 for the first time ever last year.  Those Route 1 patches could have and should have been put up a decade ago!

(And US 101 in San Francisco along Van Ness north of about McAllister has become very poorly signed since the MUNI bus lane project ended - part of that project entailed getting rid of old decorative poles along the street, many of which carried the 101 shields pre-pandemic

Putting route number signs on roads is fraught because they have multiple conflicting purposes. Most people would like route 1 to be signed all the way up and down Rice Ave, because we use such signs to guide us. CalTrans probably balks at that because they use such signs to tell people that they're responsible for maintaining the road, and they haven't accepted responsibility yet for Rice Ave.

[oscar]

Boy, that's sloppy--it should have been further to the left, and a darker green. And the following sign doesn't have the route 1 badge on it at all. CalTrans sure knows how to build roads, but they seem to give the signing jobs to dimwits.

Not new news. The route 1 sign shown in reply #126 was also a sloppy application.

[TheStranger]

Putting route number signs on roads is fraught because they have multiple conflicting purposes. Most people would like route 1 to be signed all the way up and down Rice Ave, because we use such signs to guide us. CalTrans probably balks at that because they use such signs to tell people that they're responsible for maintaining the road, and they haven't accepted responsibility yet for Rice Ave.

When CSAA/ACSC were first signing roads in the 1930s, the only purpose then - and the purpose that really should matter - is for route designations to exist for navigational purposes.

Otherwise, why bother with even having highway numbers at all?

Now, that also means that it does make sense (as sad as it is for roadgeek purposes) that not all numbered route surface streets last forever, i.e. Route 82 in downtown San Jose. 

Route 1 is a little bit higher than that in the pecking order and is an important destination off of 101 (especially if the goal from the start was to get Malibu-bound traffic away from central Oxnard).

[Max Rockatansky]

Equating route signage with maintenance is one of the worst side affects of the 1964 Renumbering.