Talk:U.S. Route 101 in California/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Unfinished 680SB - 101SB overpass

Does anybody have any photos of when the overpass was incomplete? I grew up in the area, and I remember for a long time in the mid-70s the overpass from (I think) 680SB to 101SB remained uncompleted, and looked like a giant Stonehenge. Torc 07:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

mergefrom U.S. Route 101#California suggestion

See the discussion/proposal at Talk:U.S. Route 101#California section. Thanks. --Rkitko 20:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Article name

Shouldn't this article be located at "U.S. Route 101 in California" per WP:USH? --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


Central Freeway

I believe that this should be merged into this article. NE2 disagrees, saying it's notable enough for its own article. Thoughts from others? —Scott5114↗ 14:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason I believe it should be merged is because the Central Freeway is part of US 101, and is a stub, and thus would work better being merged here. (Edit the redirect to point to #Central Freeway to tidy everything up.) —Scott5114↗ 22:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

  • It's pointless to merge just because of the current state of the article; it will not always be a stub. I also believe the torn down (decommissioned, in its actual meaning) part was never US 101. --NE2 00:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    • And I believe the exact opposite; who's to say it won't always be a stub? I say merge it for now, let it develop in the US 101 article, then split it back out when it's actually a decent article, if/when that time comes. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
      • The controversy and sources say it won't be a stub. --NE2 05:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
        • You keep commenting on what could be, when I've already admitted that my thought process doesn't work that way... --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Maybe you should think that way; there's no point in merging just to undo the merge in the future. I may see what I can do with the article, though I'm doing some NYC work right now. --NE2 06:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
            • And I think there is a point to it. I will never comment on a merge based on what can be written, if for no other reason than the fact that I don't have the time or the desire to research every random article that pops up. The only way that I can comment on a merge is by going on what I see, and editors making claims as to why the merge shouldn't be done yet making no improvements to the article to distinguish it from its proposed merge target aren't really helping. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Do you believe me now? --NE2 01:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe it should stay separate if for the simple fact that not all of the Central Freeway is signed as US 101. The section from 101 to Octavia is not signed as any numbered freeway. Gateman1997 00:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Do you know who maintains this part? The infobox currently states that the city does, but I doubt that. --NE2 01:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm assuming the state since they paid for the entire rebuild to Octavia. Gateman1997 02:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Merges

The Hollywood Freeway and Ventura Freeway include portions that are not US 101, and should not be merged. The Hollywood Freeway especially has a long history, including the Cahuenga Parkway, the second freeway in California. --NE2 01:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The Santa Ana Freeway should not be merged either. --Son (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

US 101 Ends at Interstate 5, US 60 AND Interstate 10.

Not sure where folks get the idea that I10 is not at the terminus, but it most definitely is...along with the others. Check your best maps (ie Google Maps). Norcalal 08:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Check more carefully; there's no access between US 101 and I-10. --NE2 20:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
You can get from US 101 Southbound to I-10 East. You can't get to I-10 West from US 101. The exit for California route 60 is prior to the US 101/I-5 merge. Richard Hendricks (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
You can get from US 101 south to I-10 east (and I-10 west to US 101 north), but that's 1.33 miles north of the south end of US 101. --NE2 08:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes you can, the alignment between Hollywood Frwy to i-10 East. you can also get from I-10 West to US 101 North. The Spur 10 or Former i-110 is about 2 miles I guess. I've done this a few times, and once from Universal Studios Hollywood to El Monte.--Freewayguy Msg USC 00:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Control Cities

CalTrans delegates the list of control cities to each of its districts (see this link). I was unable to find any list of California Control Cities for US 101 on the web. The control cities section should be deleted.Richard Hendricks (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

So NE2 went through and put a orange tag on the control cities section. Golden Gate Br. I beielve is use on control cities sign, i think its mor use on SR 1. Santa Rosa, Hollywood, Ventura is right. Los Angeles is use both north and southbound, and Ventura I believe is use on northbound only I don't know about southbound. i was going from El Monte to Santa Barbara over summer, I don'tseem to pay too much of control cities.--Freewayguy Msg USC 00:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

This article does have a history section, albeit lacking. Still, I think it's up to C-class. CL — 04:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sonoma County Construction Citation Request

on http://dot.ca.gov/dist4/son101/ i found the following statement: "Route 101 from the Earle Street Pedestrian Overcrossing to the Steel Lane Undercrossing and will consist of 3 stages taking place over a 2 ½ year period." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.11.192 (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Redwood Highway is incorrectly treated as the exact same entity as US 101 in California

The Redwood Highway begins North of San Francisco after the Golden Gate and ends at the Oregon Border. The disambiguation that redirects the Redwood Highway to US 100 in California needs to be eliminated and a separate article or some other method of designation must occur for the sake of accuracy. Norcalal 08:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The dab was turned into the article Redwood Highway in September 2007. The two redirects from Redwood Highway (California) and Redwood Highway (Oregon) pointed here, rather than Redwood Highway. I just pointed them there, but they could probably be Speedy Deletes for anybody who enjoys that.--Hjal (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Not longest highway

In California, there is no limitation on the use of the term "highway". Really, any road can be a highway. This includes Interstate 5, which is longer within CA's borders than US 101. I suggest removing the length reference from the intro. --Fcsuper (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I stand somewhat corrected, though the source does not explain "length" very well. The I-5 freeway does stretch from the south border to the north border, whereas 101 starts in LA (well within the State's border by about a 3 hour's drive). — fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 06:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The 101 follows coastal mountains and valleys most of its length, while I5 is mostly flat and straight. Its easy for anyone who has driven both these roads to know why the coastal route is longer, despite starting as much as 2 hours north of the starting point for I5. 06:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I think you might be thinking of highway 1. 101 isn't all that windy...though I guess it doesn't take much to beat out the very boring I5. 101 only takes a couple of major cut-backs (once between SLO and Santa Barbara) and a bit farther north to go through Salinas. It then follows SF pennisula through Golden Gate, but is again, not windy there either.

The 101

The only external link at the time this comment was written is to an article about "The 101," and not about Highway 101 in general. The article on Interstate 405 mentions its colloquial appellation of "the 405" but the article on Highway 101 doesn't mention "the 101," what it means, what section it refers to, or how it came to be called that. For a term that sounds quite normal in some areas and very strange in others, I think some sort of mention of its existence is warranted. I know of at least one official sign in southern California that says "101 Freeway" but is there a section of the road that at any point is officially called "The 101 Freeway?" Hagrinas (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Airborne public radio traffic reporters for California cities often use shortened sentence structure from two-way radio communication procedures to identify their observations on major commuter routes by names like "the Nimitz Freeway" shortened to "the Nimitz" or "the (number)" where the highway is better known locally by a number rather than a name. I doubt the phraseology has "official" standing, but the radio reporting style has become widely used when giving directions, or at other times when context makes it clear the adjective refers to a highway.Thewellman (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Freeway/Interstate?

I've noticed over the years that US 101 has been in the process of being converted into a freeway. More recently, I read that it is possible that the highway will be "given" to the Interstate Highway System. Is that true? Can anyone shed some light on the issue? Also, there is no "Future" section to the article. If my question above is true, it should be added to the article. Allen (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you reliably source this? --Rschen7754 19:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Check out Future Interstate Highways. There is a listing for US 101. Allen (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Which is unsourced. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball or a place where people can speculate on whether roads will be built or not. --Rschen7754 22:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I realize it is unsourced. However, that still leaves the issue of why US 101 is being upgraded to a freeway. Allen (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it's being/been upgraded because Caltrans saw a need to handle a greater amount of traffic on the highway? MDOT upgraded several highways to freeway without pursuing Interstate designations (US 31, US 131, US 27/US 127, US 23), and even built a new freeway from the ground up (M-6) without pursuing such a designation. Not all freeways in the US are or have to be Interstates, but all* Interstates have to be freeways. (Yes, there are exceptions, but that's not the general rule.) Imzadi 1979 → 01:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, all,

The latest in the "freewayization" of Route 101 is the Willits Bypass. This controversial bypass is being inflicted upon residents of Willits and the surrounding Little Lake Valley despite massive local opposition. Browse The Willits News or other Mendocino County details for details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgejdorner (talk • contribs) 15:26, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

SR 1 in Oxnard

As of March 2015, there is a gap in the SR 1 signs from the Pleasant Valley interchange to US 101. All the signs have been taken down in Oxnard for SR 1 including at the intersections with SR 34, SR 232, and US 101. Northbound cars on PCH, are guided onto Rice Avenue at the Pleasant Valley intersection without signs as Oxnard Blvd now takes two turns to reach after exiting. Without exiting, Rice Avenue is straight ahead under the Pleasant Valley over-crossing.

On southbound US 101, the SR 1 signs have been removed or covered over. There is a sign warning for trucks about special rules for SR1 but it doesn't mention an exit. Although the southbound signs were removed, nothing has been posted at Santa Clara/Rice so there are no SR 1 signs for southbound drivers. Likewise there isn't a sign at the intersection of Rice Avenue with SR 34 (site of recent train crash). I assume the delay has to do with an evaluation by Caltrans before Rice Road is official.

I will report back when I see new SR 1 signs and maybe we can find something to satisfy WP:V. Fettlemap (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It is bad enough that Caltrans does not really strictly enforce the repeated requirements in the California Streets and Highway Code § 300-635,[4] where if a relinquished segment is in the middle of a highway's route, cities are required to install and maintain signs directing drivers to the continuation of that highway. Yet there it is now updated in § 301 (g): "For those relinquished former portions of Route 1, the Cities of Dana Point, Newport Beach, Santa Monica, and Oxnard shall maintain within their respective jurisdictions signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 1". But when there are little or no SR 1 signs currently in the relinquished segment in Newport Beach, I'm not optimistic that Oxnard will also follow through with the same requirement.
And then when I read the updated definition of SR 1 in § 301, it does seem to imply that that there is, in fact, a gap between the 101 and Pleasant Valley Road:
301.  Route 1 is from:
   (a) Route 5 south of San Juan Capistrano to Route 101 near El Rio
except for the portions of Route 1 relinquished:
   ...
      (4) Within the city limits of the City of Oxnard between Pleasant
   Valley Road and Route 101.
Because El Rio, California is on the northeast side of the 101 and Oxnard, the phrase "near El Rio" could basically mean any point on 101 inside Oxnard's city limits between Oxnard Blvd and Rice Ave. So I would also not be surprised if there is little or no signage at the 101/Rice intersection going forward. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the background info. Fettlemap (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
The county of Ventura has county-maintained roads on their GIS. The map currently shows that the county is still responsible for the section of Rice between Channel Islands Blvd. and Fifth St (CA 34). Click here and turn on Transportation layer under More drop-down menu. Fettlemap (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Mid 1960's

Was US 101 in California was over 900 miles until the mid 1960's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.5.104 (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

SR 1 in Oxnard

For old archived discussion, see Talk:U.S. Route 101 in California/Archive 1#SR 1 in Oxnard

Apparently, Google Maps is now showing SR 1 going through Rice Ave instead of Oxnard Blvd. However, that is only one source. AFAIK, there are still no signs posted, and other sources like Bing Maps still show SR 1 on Oxnard Blvd. Thus, that is still insufficient to warrant changing the article here on Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The county of Ventura shows county-maintained roads on their GIS and I understand they are efficient and keep it up-to-date. As you can see, SR 34 is clearly shown as state highway and that it is not maintained by the county. This will be a good place to check when one thinks the transfer has been made of the section of Rice between Channel Islands Blvd. and Fifth St (CA 34). That section should change to look like SR 34. Click here and turn on Transportation layer under More drop-down menu. Fettlemap (talk) 05:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on U.S. Route 101 in California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

All four links are useful now. Dhtwiki (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on U.S. Route 101 in California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Link just leads to index page that doesn't lead elsewhere. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Watershed navigation bars

An editor has questioned whether navigation bars would be appropriate for all of the dozens of California watersheds highway 101 passes through. I suggest that might be excessive, although there are three California watersheds uniquely associated with highway 101. Highway 101 follows these rivers closely through their California coast range valleys connecting the riverside communities to the outside world. Each of these three river watersheds contains more than 10% of the highway 101 mileage in California, and no other federal highways enter any of these watersheds. Thewellman (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

These criteria are very arbitrary. This seems to be more of a desire to cherrypick various favorite watersheds, and the assertion of the connection borders on original research. I also question whether these navboxes should even exist. There are only 27 in Category:United States river navigational boxes and most of those are for much larger watersheds or for those of entire states. --Rschen7754 07:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it seems arbitrary. Are these watersheds signed on the highway? Where I'm from it's exceedingly rare to see any watershed signs along roads. –Fredddie™ 11:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The Russian River watershed is signed. I'm not sure about the other two, which represent greater highway lengths; although the northern Russian River boundary is the southern Eel River boundary. I anticipate opportunities to field check later this month. Watershed boundaries are of significant interest in California because of agricultural, economic, and environmental consequences of water transfer from one watershed to another. Larger watersheds are of increased interest because of the greater acreage and volumes of water involved. I'm not sure the 10% figure is an appropriate threshold, but I mentioned it to illustrate the significance of these three watersheds in comparison to the dozens of others. As a matter of interest to those who travel highway 101, The Eel River watershed is an area of water surplus with towering groves of trees, while the Salinas River watershed is an area of water scarcity with dead trees lining drier portions of the river channel. Thewellman (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
    "Watershed boundaries are of significant interest in California because of agricultural, economic, and environmental consequences of water transfer from one watershed to another" -> As a Californian, I have seen more watershed signs in other states than in California. I would significantly disagree with this statement. --Rschen7754 18:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
    As a resident of California, I realize northern Californians (who live in watersheds with unallocated water rights) and southern Californians (who need more water) may significantly disagree about the significance of watershed boundaries. Thewellman (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
    If you need local context to appreciate it, then it's probably not relevant for a global encyclopedia. --Rschen7754 00:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The question is not whether watersheds are relevant to include in highway articles. The question is whether watershed navboxes are relevant to include in highway articles. I unequivocally say the answer to the second question is no. Highways are not rivers.  VC  01:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree. Mention the watersheds in prose, but remove the navboxes from the bottom of the article. Imzadi 1979 → 02:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

US 101 vs. "the 101"

The edits going back and forth between "US 101" and "the 101 (freeway)" are getting out of hand. I'm from California too but I believe that, with a few instances that can be supported in context, the US 101 descriptor should be used to match the tone and style prescribed by Wikipedia, or else it sounds too informal. (This same rule should be followed for other California freeways and highways.) Pf1127 —Preceding undated comment added 19:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not opposed to pointing out that "the 101" is a regional colloquialism, but we have to source that somehow. It certainly should not go in the lead of the article, but I'm not exactly sure where it should go. –Fredddie™ 19:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
It is already in the second paragraph of the lead with reference: Why Southern Californians Love Saying 'the' Before Freeway Numbers. It is only a Southern California thing per the reference. For all the reasons given above, leave mention in lead but definitely "US 101." Cheers, Fettlemap (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
@Fettlemap: that's what I get for not reading it closely enough. Thanks. –Fredddie™ 20:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I am personally opposed to adding it, because then we would have to go to every Southern California road article and add it. the 110? the 2? the 138? the 259? No thanks. --Rschen7754 01:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Temporary semi-protection has been requested; maybe that will encourage the IP user(s) to come here for a chat. Happy days, LindsayHello 19:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The IP user isn't interested in chatting about it. Their edits have been changing all mentions of US 101 to "the 101". That's quite different than mentioning a particular colloquialism as information or trivia. The latter is reasonable to include, but only in that sense, not in any official reference capacity. Pinging Cards84664, who has been diligent in this issue. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 20:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Block all of the ip adresses involved. Cards84664 (talk) 1:03 pm, Today (UTC−8)
I am aware of that; i prefer, however, to hope that they may choose to when they find they are unable to enforce their will because of the semi-protection and pending changes settings. In addition, the current IP has been blocked, which may provide a little further relief for the article. Happy days, LindsayHello 21:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
It would violate WP:USSH as well. --Rschen7754 01:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:U.S._Route_101_in_California/Archive_1&oldid=1219745409"