A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travel Regions » USA & Canada
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Driving in LA, bottlenecked



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 20th, 2010, 10:41 PM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada
Hatunen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,483
Default 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  
Old January 21st, 2010, 08:23 PM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada
Don Kirkman[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 42
Default 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  
Old January 21st, 2010, 08:23 PM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada
Don Kirkman[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 42
Default 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  
Old January 21st, 2010, 10:04 PM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada
Hatunen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,483
Default 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  
Old January 22nd, 2010, 11:37 PM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada
Don Kirkman[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 42
Default 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  
Old January 23rd, 2010, 11:08 PM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada
Hatunen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,483
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 09:58 AM
driving stef USA & Canada 4 December 2nd, 2005 12:18 AM
Test your driving Skill at http://driving-test.friendsrus.net [email protected] Europe 3 November 26th, 2005 08:49 PM
Driving In The USA Shawn Hearn USA & Canada 13 July 19th, 2004 02:52 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.