If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Driving in LA, bottlenecked
On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 01:23:15 +0000 (UTC), Joe Makowiec
wrote: On 19 Jan 2010 in rec.travel.usa-canada, Don Kirkman wrote: Indeed. The first (in the world, maybe--1940) was The Arroyo Seco Parkway, now the Pasadena Freeway. Robert Moses was building parkways around New York City in the 1930s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yor...Parkway_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Moses#Influence As the above cite notes, the first NY parkways date back to 1908 and although limited access didn't really meet the current concept of a freeway. I'm not going to wade through the list of New York parkways to figure out when they became modern. Certainly even the older portions of the Taconic Parkway met most otf the standards of a modern freeway although the curves were a bit tight and there wasn't much of a shoulder. Wikipedia says it was completed in the early 1960s, but I'm almost certain I drove it from the northern end south in the 1950s. The Arroyo Seco Parkway was completed in 1940 but the first German autobahn, which was more like a mdoern freeway/motorway, was opened in 1931 (Hitler was not the one who came up with the need). I drove the Pasadena Freeway a few times in the 1960s and the arroyo portion seemed pretty dangerous by modern standards. But a recent drive on it indicated that a lot had been done to update it. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Driving in LA, bottlenecked
It seems to me I heard somewhere that Hatunen wrote in article
: On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 01:23:15 +0000 (UTC), Joe Makowiec wrote: Robert Moses was building parkways around New York City in the 1930s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yor...Parkway_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Moses#Influence As the above cite notes, the first NY parkways date back to 1908 and although limited access didn't really meet the current concept of a freeway. I'm not going to wade through the list of New York parkways to figure out when they became modern. Certainly even the older portions of the Taconic Parkway met most otf the standards of a modern freeway although the curves were a bit tight and there wasn't much of a shoulder. Wikipedia says it was completed in the early 1960s, but I'm almost certain I drove it from the northern end south in the 1950s. The Arroyo Seco Parkway was completed in 1940 but the first German autobahn, which was more like a mdoern freeway/motorway, was opened in 1931 (Hitler was not the one who came up with the need). I drove the Pasadena Freeway a few times in the 1960s and the arroyo portion seemed pretty dangerous by modern standards. But a recent drive on it indicated that a lot had been done to update it. I was a passenger on the Arroyo Seco Parkway a few times in the late 1940s, and under its new name drove it daily between 1968 and 1970; it was a very tight but exhilarating drive at the normal speeds of that time. :-) The offramps were very short, often with sharp turns onto the local streets and without adequate room for traffic merging onto the freeway. They've tried to mitigate the problem but there's not enough space to do as much as it really needs. -- Don Kirkman |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Driving in LA, bottlenecked
It seems to me I heard somewhere that Hatunen wrote in article
: On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:19:02 -0800, SMS wrote: Mark Brader wrote: Steven Scharf: Can anyone explain why in northern California, if you tell someone how to get somewhere it's along the lines of "take 280 south to 85 south to 101 south," but in southern California it's "take _the 5_ to _the_ 210 to _the_ 134? I suspect it's because in southern California they had freeways with names first, so people got used to saying "the Harbor Freeway" and so on, and the "the" usage got extended to other roads. Well the freeways up here have names too, "the Nimitz," "the Bayshore," and "the James Lick," but when you use the number of the road you drop the "the." Actually even the freeways that are commonly referred to by numbers all have names that are rarely used. I'd like to see some traffic announcer decide to use only names one day, "the Luther Gibson has no delays." Wehn I lived near San Francisco I used to hear traffic reports about the James Lick Freeway... .. . . aka the Bayshore farther south of SF, and the Eastshore Freeway through Oakland and Berkeley, and later the Cypress and Nimitz and others. For me, again the late forties through the fifties. -- Don Kirkman |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Driving in LA, bottlenecked
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:23:38 -0800, Don Kirkman
wrote: It seems to me I heard somewhere that Hatunen wrote in article : On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:19:02 -0800, SMS wrote: Mark Brader wrote: Steven Scharf: Can anyone explain why in northern California, if you tell someone how to get somewhere it's along the lines of "take 280 south to 85 south to 101 south," but in southern California it's "take _the 5_ to _the_ 210 to _the_ 134? I suspect it's because in southern California they had freeways with names first, so people got used to saying "the Harbor Freeway" and so on, and the "the" usage got extended to other roads. Well the freeways up here have names too, "the Nimitz," "the Bayshore," and "the James Lick," but when you use the number of the road you drop the "the." Actually even the freeways that are commonly referred to by numbers all have names that are rarely used. I'd like to see some traffic announcer decide to use only names one day, "the Luther Gibson has no delays." Wehn I lived near San Francisco I used to hear traffic reports about the James Lick Freeway... . . . aka the Bayshore farther south of SF, and the Eastshore Freeway through Oakland and Berkeley, Huh? The Eastshore Freeway isn't an exention of the James Lick Freeway. And the James Lick doesn't exist south of, I believe, the I-280 cutoff to Pacifica. although Wikipedia claims US-101 remains the James Lick inside SF city limits. and later the Cypress and Nimitz and others. For me, again the late forties through the fifties. I don't believe the Cypress was a freeway, but rather a structure on the Nimitz Freeway (which still clung to the route CA-17 designation when I first moved there, named for the surface street it paralleled. But I could be wrong. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Driving in LA, bottlenecked
It seems to me I heard somewhere that Hatunen wrote in article
: On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:23:38 -0800, Don Kirkman wrote: It seems to me I heard somewhere that Hatunen wrote in article : On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:19:02 -0800, SMS wrote: Mark Brader wrote: Steven Scharf: Can anyone explain why in northern California, if you tell someone how to get somewhere it's along the lines of "take 280 south to 85 south to 101 south," but in southern California it's "take _the 5_ to _the_ 210 to _the_ 134? I suspect it's because in southern California they had freeways with names first, so people got used to saying "the Harbor Freeway" and so on, and the "the" usage got extended to other roads. Well the freeways up here have names too, "the Nimitz," "the Bayshore," and "the James Lick," but when you use the number of the road you drop the "the." Actually even the freeways that are commonly referred to by numbers all have names that are rarely used. I'd like to see some traffic announcer decide to use only names one day, "the Luther Gibson has no delays." Wehn I lived near San Francisco I used to hear traffic reports about the James Lick Freeway... . . . aka the Bayshore farther south of SF, and the Eastshore Freeway through Oakland and Berkeley, Huh? The Eastshore Freeway isn't an exention of the James Lick Freeway. Parsing error: ""the James Lick Freeway . . .|. . . aka the Bayshore farther south . . . .. . . and the Eastshore Freeway through Oakland, etc. And the James Lick doesn't exist south of, I believe, Right; south of the James Lick is the Bayshore. the I-280 cutoff to Pacifica. although Wikipedia claims US-101 remains the James Lick inside SF city limits. and later the Cypress and Nimitz and others. For me, again the late forties through the fifties. I don't believe the Cypress was a freeway, but rather a structure on the Nimitz Freeway (which still clung to the route CA-17 designation when I first moved there, named for the surface street it paralleled. But I could be wrong. I won't arbitrate between you and my Kwiki source on the Cypress. :-) And I'm not clear on the surface streets, but CA 17 was one I traveled quite a bit between Santa Cruz/Monterey area up into SF, both as a student at Berkeley and later as a trainee at Fort Ord. Ah, those were the days. :-) -- Don Kirkman |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Driving in LA, bottlenecked
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:37:20 -0800, Don Kirkman
wrote: It seems to me I heard somewhere that Hatunen wrote in article : On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:23:38 -0800, Don Kirkman wrote: It seems to me I heard somewhere that Hatunen wrote in article : On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:19:02 -0800, SMS wrote: Mark Brader wrote: Steven Scharf: Can anyone explain why in northern California, if you tell someone how to get somewhere it's along the lines of "take 280 south to 85 south to 101 south," but in southern California it's "take _the 5_ to _the_ 210 to _the_ 134? I suspect it's because in southern California they had freeways with names first, so people got used to saying "the Harbor Freeway" and so on, and the "the" usage got extended to other roads. Well the freeways up here have names too, "the Nimitz," "the Bayshore," and "the James Lick," but when you use the number of the road you drop the "the." Actually even the freeways that are commonly referred to by numbers all have names that are rarely used. I'd like to see some traffic announcer decide to use only names one day, "the Luther Gibson has no delays." Wehn I lived near San Francisco I used to hear traffic reports about the James Lick Freeway... . . . aka the Bayshore farther south of SF, and the Eastshore Freeway through Oakland and Berkeley, Huh? The Eastshore Freeway isn't an exention of the James Lick Freeway. Parsing error: ""the James Lick Freeway . . .|. . . aka the Bayshore farther south . . . Impluying taht the Bayshore further south, say in Palo Alto, is still the James Lick Freeway. . . . and the Eastshore Freeway through Oakland, etc. And the James Lick doesn't exist south of, I believe, Right; south of the James Lick is the Bayshore. The question seems to be exactly wehre the US-101 stops being the James Lick. the I-280 cutoff to Pacifica. although Wikipedia claims US-101 remains the James Lick inside SF city limits. and later the Cypress and Nimitz and others. For me, again the late forties through the fifties. I don't believe the Cypress was a freeway, but rather a structure on the Nimitz Freeway (which still clung to the route CA-17 designation when I first moved there, named for the surface street it paralleled. But I could be wrong. I won't arbitrate between you and my Kwiki source on the Cypress. :-) And I'm not clear on the surface streets, but CA 17 was one I traveled quite a bit between Santa Cruz/Monterey area up into SF, both as a student at Berkeley and later as a trainee at Fort Ord. Ah, those were the days. :-) I don't believe the route between Santa Cruz and Monterey has ever been anything but CA-1. The freeway bestween Santa Cruz and San Jose is CA-17. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Driving While on Cell Phone Worse Than Driving While Drunk | Pete | USA & Canada | 47 | July 4th, 2006 07:54 PM |
Driving in la | stef | USA & Canada | 11 | December 11th, 2005 08:58 AM |
driving | stef | USA & Canada | 4 | December 1st, 2005 11:18 PM |
Test your driving Skill at http://driving-test.friendsrus.net | [email protected] | Europe | 3 | November 26th, 2005 07:49 PM |
Driving In The USA | Shawn Hearn | USA & Canada | 13 | July 19th, 2004 02:52 AM |