Talk:California State Route 1/Archive 1

Unprotected
Any problems, please sort on talk page. Rich  Farmbrough 11:36 8  March 2006 (UTC).

Question
Can anyone state, how long it takes to drive from LA to san franciso on csr1? -pedro


 * I went from Long Beach to San Francisco in 11.5 hours, driving fairly but not dangerously fast. But I don't think that travel time is really encyclopedic, nor is this a discussion board.134.139.214.73 (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's a fair question: I came to this article wondering the same thing (I've never been to California but I'm planning a trip next year). True, an actual specific time cannot be given, since it depends on so many factors. I wonder, though, if there is a way to give some information on this as the PCH is famous and the article may just attract readers looking for this very bit of info. (And yes, I do realize AAA or California Tourism can probably provide some info on this).  freshacconci  talk talk  18:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the driving time would vary considerably depending upon the motive for the trip. The road is predominantly two-lane with steep grades, sharp curves, and fog often restricting visibility required for safely passing other vehicles.  Vehicles choosing the route for scenic enjoyment may not move as rapidly as road conditions allow.  Periods of heavy tourist use increase the number of slow vehicles and decrease opportunities for passing.  California law requires slower vehicles to pull over to allow passing when it is safe to do so, but not all drivers conform to the law, and there may be significant distance between safe turnouts for those who do.  In the absence of road closures for landslides or vehicle collisions, drivers enjoying maneuvering through winding hilly roads may cover the distance in a single calendar day (with the number of hours required varying with traffic conditions, weather, and driving skills); but the sustained focus required to do so may limit enjoyment of the spectacular scenery.Thewellman (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest driving coastal highway 1 northbound rather than southbound. The relatively continuous ocean vistas can be a constant source of eye-straining glare driving toward the sun, while keeping the sun at one's back simply improves the lighting of this magnificent scenery. Traveling southbound, I suggest US Highway 101 for scenery or Interstate 5 for speed.Thewellman (talk) 04:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The other issue is, what time of day you want to do it. Basically, you want to do the big sur part in daytime so you can enjoy the views, have time to stop at some of the parks, etc. But if you start in LA it will take you 3+ hours just to get to the start of Big Sur, cutting out a big fraction of the day and likely making you too tired to enjoy the nice part. So a reasonable plan would be to start in the afternoon, stop in SLO for the night, and continue the next morning. You can do the boring bits from Monterey to SF in the evening of the second day; that's only another 2 hours. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Layout
What do I do with the state law section of this page? I had to use the to push the section down... but since the routebox is huge it leaves lots of blank space... --Rschen7754 23:44, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * If you want to know the truth, I think the law section detracts from the article. If the California highway code was put into a repository such as Wikisource, and then linked to from the article, it would be much better. Gentgeen 17:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * However, the WikiProject specifications require that a state law section be placed in the article...--Rschen7754 18:01, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

History and future aspirations
Does anyone know any history or future aspirations for CA-1? --Rschen7754 17:36, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

There are plans to move the route along Rice Avenue in Oxnard and move the 101/1 interchange three miles east. That's about it. Floydspinky71 01:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Some history would be helpful, e.g., an indication of when it was first built, or first named as a unit.--24.52.254.62 21:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Northern end; also picture
Highway 1? In Ferndale? I didn't know it went north of Leggett, where it meets 101. (Nor does Mapquest.)

Also, since we don't know the source of the photo, are we quite sure it's Hwy 1? I'm not saying it isn't, but it looks a great deal like the road from Four Corners (Mill Valley) to Muir Woods. It would be nice to have a pic with some ocean in it, which would be unambiguous as well as picturesque. Maybe I'll get around to taking one. Dandrake 23:48, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I have added a picture of mine to the article, looking northward along the coast. I personally think its more pleasing than the other picture (because the other picture looks to be taken on a stormy day), but obviously more is better. If anyone can improve the layout i'd be appreciative, i cant figure out a way to align it better. -Lanoitarus 05:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Infobox
The infobox on this article is too long. Can't y'all find some other way to hold that information? SchmuckyTheCat 22:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We can certainly cut down on the list of "Major cities and towns". -Will Beback 22:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ouch. A lot of the information in the current infobox would be better served by being in the article itself; the list of major cities that Route 1 runs through is great information, but isn't especially well-served in a "quick reference" fashion. EVula 23:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

We can switch to infobox CA Route as in User:SPUI/State Route 15 (California). --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 00:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

We have debates about this, just look around through the road Wp pages. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 
 * Also the routebox has been cut down significantly as of yesterday to major cities and junctions so it should be fine now.JohnnyBGood 18:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The current infobox is not working right on this page.Richard Hendricks 00:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Exit list
Could we still have junctions, in a separate article? Maybe an exit list? Somewhere along the lines of California State Route 1 (Exit list) or similar? --Geopgeop 08:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I added it in. It's still incomplete as I haven't put in statewide postmiles (the Cal-Nexus exit numbers are somewhat of that, but true numbers will need to be added eventually). If anybody can do the postmile calculations using the California bridge logs at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaint/brlog2.htm, I ask that you please do. --Geopgeop 06:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Due to rains...
the earth has cracked under the roadbed of Route 1 near Devil's Slide. This means the road to Pacifica has been CLOSED indefinitely. --Geopgeop 07:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I added an external link to Coastsider.com because of the Devil's Slide closure. I'm still pretty new here, so if I shouldn't have done that, please let me know. Thanks! --Clarinetplayer 03:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Missing pieces
It seems to me that various smaller pieces of the highway description are missing. For example, between Lincoln Boulevard and PCH Santa Monica, 1 runs on Olympic Boulevard; between I-280 and 19th Ave., 1 runs on Juniperro Serra Boulevard; between Park Presidio and the bridge, it runs along the approach known as Doyle Dr.; and in Point Arena, it is both Main St. and School St. Is this correct, and are there any other missing pieces? (Also, Leggett is far north of the S.F. Bay Area, so this section should be renamed.) Calbaer 00:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add more details. I was the one who originally rewrote it back in January. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Lead: too much clutter & detail

 * (This is copied from our user talk pages.)

Please explain your reasoning for re-adding such a long and detailed listing of local names back into the lead. You used this edit summary:


 * (As per the guidelines of WP:R#What needs to be done on pages that are targets of redirects?, merging the "Segment names" section back to the lead intro section)

Are there such redirects, and if so, where are they? Wouldn't it be more logical to change them, than to violate the principles regarding WP:LEAD?

I would suggest changing the redirects, restoring the section, and then mentioning that section in the lead, according to the guidelines for the lead:


 * State Route 1, often called Highway 1, is a state highway that runs along a large length of the Pacific coast of the U.S. State of California. Certain segments of the highway have their own (local) names. Highway 1 is famous for running by some of the most beautiful coastlines in the world, leading to its designation as an All-American Road.

How does that sound? If there are redirects that need changing, I'd be happy to help do it. -- Fyslee/talk 06:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC) (Source: )


 * I don't know what part of California you are from, but here in Southern California, it is very common to refer to a freeway or highway by its full, descriptive name. There are scores of examples from the L.A. media and other sources that use the "Pacific Coast Highway" name instead of "Highway 1".


 * The spirit of WP:R and WP:LEAD is that commonly used, alternate names should be included, in bold, in the lead section. At the very least, the lead section should be similar to what it was during the very first version of this article. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC) (Source: )


 * I'm from the Berdoo area. Bolding in the lead does apply, but only about the title of the article, so if you had a specific article about the PCH, then that would be bolded, but this is about the whole Hwy 1, which has many local sections with their own names. That fact should indeed be mentioned in the lead, but the lead isn't for including a long list of local names. It makes it cluttered. The same applies to myriad articles here, for example falcons. We don't list all the different kinds of falcons in the lead, and in bold letters. Such details get elaborated on later in the body of the article in their own section. The only thing that gets to be in bold is the word falcon. -- Fyslee/talk 22:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC) (Source: )


 * Actually, my preference for the lead would be similar to this version. Having lived in NoCal, in common usage, they never refer it to as the "Cabrillo Highway" or the "Shoreline Highway". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have also lived in Northern California (Napa Valley and Auburn areas). That previous version has no real lead. The whole article is in the lead! Actually, according to the Lead guidelines, that first sentence nearly qualified as the lead, and the rest as the body. Such material often starts with a "background" heading and then uses appropriate headings depending on the subject matter. The local names topic makes a big enough section to deserve its own heading.


 * I have a rule of thumb to ensure that WP:LEAD is fulfilled: If it deserves its own heading, it's notable enough to deserve mention in the lead, but only briefly. In my proposed heading above, the fact (that there are local names) gets mentioned. Those who want to learn more can get all the details by reading the section. -- -- Fyslee/talk 23:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Control Cities
Yes, I have not start on that sections. I will if I have time but I have to go in 5 minutes.Freewayguy 03:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC) HPShu 789194

Santa Cruz
I'm not sure that this sentence is entirely correct: "Upon reaching downtown Santa Cruz, it continues as Mission Street and Coast Road before regaining the Cabrillo Highway name." It seems to me that downtown is a couple of blocks away from where SR1 meets up with Mission Street (at Chestnut Street).

Also, the SR17 interchange is usually called the Fishhook (due to its shape), and it might deserve a mention as an oddity. The first time you drive north on SR1 through Santa Cruz, it feels like you're taking an unexpected exit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would agree, "The fishhook" is somewhat notable, and was recently redone (2008-2009). W Nowicki (talk) 03:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

US vs. State Route 1
Well, chalk me up as confused. I don;t get this. I thought the 101 was the coastal highway and the US 1 was on the east coast. Is California route 1 simply a highway that shares a common alignment with route 101??? If anyone could help explain how the 101 is not the state route 1 and what exactly the state route 1 is, it would be much appreciated. TotallyTempo (talk) 05:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You thought wrong :) State route 1 is an earlier highway, there will probably be a highway 1 in every state. In places they take the same route,  US 101 takes a more inland route at times. You were right about U.S. 1, it's on the East Coast.  State route 1 is a part of only California's highway system, US 101 and 1 are interstate routes that are part of the United States Numbered Highways system. State transportation departments often coordinate national and state route numbering schemes in their own state so that two highways don't have the same number in the same state.  Is there a part of the article where this could be made clearer? Synchronism (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well thanks for the reply. I think that the fact that interstates and state highways use the same numbers for totally different routes threw me off. We only have 2 "interstate" highways in Canada, all the rest are provincial highways...hence my confusion. TotallyTempo (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Rockport, California
I concur that most of the Mendocino coastal villages were formerly company towns, but Rockport seemed a little different at the time of my last visit. While many of the other towns were subdivided into individual residential and commercial ownerships, I believe Rockport remained part of commercial forestland. Little evidence of a town was visible from the highway. A few structures may remain for forestry equipment maintenance, but the general tendency has been for landowners to gate access roads and demolish unused structures to avoid vandalism by homeless trespassers. Rockport seemed to resemble Usal, Andersonia, Korbel, and Crannell more than Elk, Albion, Caspar, and Fort Bragg. I intended the description as a "former sawmill company town" to reflect a difference from the other small communities with similar history; but I would value an alternative description from your observations of the site.Thewellman (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been on the stretch of Highway 1 between Albion and Fort Bragg quite often, but I've only been through Rockport a couple of times and I don't remember much about it. So I don't really have anything to add to your observations. It sounds like you intended your description to mean that it isn't really a town any more, but formerly was? But that didn't come across; instead, I read it as meaning a town that still exists but had a history of being a company town, which is true for many other towns as well. So a rewording that made the intent more clear would be helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Rockport deserves description not so much as a community, but as the place where highway 1 finally leaves the coast it has followed for hundreds of miles. The location identified on maps as Rockport is different from most of the similarly labeled coastal communities.  Your accurate recollection of Rockport confirms the apt warning about missing it if you blink.  Thick second growth forest screened Rockport from highway view when I last passed, and the access road resembled a gated driveway.  In the absence of description, I envision drivers winding up over Wildcat Ridge before they are aware they have left the coast.  Since you declined an opportunity to describe the location yourself, I am puzzled by your objections to my description.Thewellman (talk) 06:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Basically, we have very brief mentions of a lot of much more significant towns and cities, and then a long detailed description of Rockport, both geographic (the place where the geography forces the road away from the coast) and historic. It seems to violate WP:UNDUE. My edits left the geographic part in, as it is relevant for the road itself, but left the history for users to find out about by clicking the link. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

New Salinas Road Interchange
The exit for the new Salinas Road interchange should be added to the Major Intersections table. The interchange was complete in February 2013, and based on research, the exit number is 423, and its postmileage in Monterey County is roughly 101.04. I endeavored to add it myself, but editing the table was unfamiliar and frustrating. --Nebula2357 (talk) 07:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Timing out issue

 * I've tried to edit the exit list but it always times out. --Tv&#39;s emory (talk) 09:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am also experiencing this same issue of timing out. I suspect it has something to do with the sheer amount of instances of templates. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There are plans to change the core of the junction list templates to Lua to help fix this problem, but unfortunately we've been bogged down by the sheer numbers of road-related templates that must be converted. --Rschen7754 07:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you suggest in the interim? I prefer we scale it back and give a link to U.S. Route 101 in California to the concurrency parts, or temporarily remove it. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The other option is to temporarily revert the table back to a previous version before the implementation of the templates. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, but that would revert to a version that is not fully compliant with WP:RJL. We generally shouldn't have to edit the table that much though - usually I've found that my edits still go through, even if it doesn't look like it did. --Rschen7754 07:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Does it seem to also slow down when you try to edit other sections of the article? Normally, the wikimedia software should purge and rebuild the entire page, and all the templates and all, even if you make a null edit in the lead section. That's also an issue. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been editing several FA candidates laden down with templates, and things do seem to be getting slower and slower... unfortunately, I don't have any ideas as to what it could be. --Rschen7754 08:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Although it may not make a difference, another option is to cut down any excessive rows in the table, and strictly only include what is only listed on WP:RJL. Do we really need a row at the Dana Point-Laguna Beach city limit, or the LA-Santa Monica city limit, indicating parts of the highway are relinquished, and no longer under state maintenance? I do not remember seeing that information on most other articles (unless it goes through, for example, a national park or other similar federally-controlled area). Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have thought for the last few years that we've had too many junctions in most California road articles, due to some sockpuppeteers who have thankfully been indefed. There is probably room to remove a lot of the more minor junctions, where it's not an interchange or a major road. --Rschen7754 08:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that some of these minor intersections have postmiles that are not listed in Caltrans' Log of Bridges, which we use to cite for the major ones. Where did they get those postmiles from? What other reliable source says that it is "major"? I'll wait a few days to see if anyone objects, otherwise I'll probably remove them on grounds of unsourced material. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would check the traffic volumes site, just in case. --Rschen7754 08:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Split intersections table into subarticle
For example: create "List of California State Route 1 intersections" and move the large table from "California State Route 1" into that new subarticle. I think the list subarticle is acceptable because of the notability of the overall subject of Route 1, and it would reduce the clutter in the main article, as well as reduce the reformat time by 15-to-30 seconds faster. That change could be made ASAP. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I vaguely remember a similar stand only intersection list being listed on AFD on grounds of "Wikipedia is not a travel guide" or something similar. But that was more than 8 years ago, before consensus changed and MOS:RJL was created. That would be my only concern. Zzyzx11 (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Something definitely needs to be done — the reformat time is making this article almost uneditable. An alternative would be to take more seriously the "major intersections" section heading and include only intersections with roads that are themselves state highways or above. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, many of them have been deleted - see WP:USRD/P. --Rschen7754 19:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Faster template variations, Template:Jct
I ran some tests to find the slow templates in the group, and to my surprise, almost 10 seconds, of 18 seconds total, was spent in the "simple" Template:Jct, which merely links Interstate "I-5" or "SR 46" to California road pages, plus wikilinks the cities with ", California". I think it spends a huge time finding which nation/state name to format with the road id. Hence, I am thinking to write a California-only variant as Template:JctCA (to ignore "state=CA") and rapidly link the parameter names to California pages, probably 20x(?) faster, as 0.5 seconds (formerly 10 sec) to format all 65 road junctions for State Route 1. That simple change, to replace "{Jct}" with "{JctCA}" could make each California road table over 2x (twice) as fast, but allow restoring {JctCA} as {Jct} if a Lua version were to be created to quickly handle all U.S. states. Another factor, which I did not mention earlier: when the servers become slower, a large page of 25 seconds can become double or triple-slow as 50 to 75 seconds (exceeding the 60-second timeout), and that is why even a 21-second reformat, at triple-slow (3x21=63), can exceed the limit with busy squid servers. Instead, quicken some templates, to reduce the total time below 20 seconds, and then a sluggish edit-preview would never exceed the 60-second timeout. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it would be much better to change the state-finding portion of the code to Lua, and that way all the states are fixed. --Rschen7754 23:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason we can't do both? A quick and dirty substitution of the template on slow CA pages such as this one followed by slower and more careful testing and rollout of a US-wide Lua replacement? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's probably best to just do it all at once; when the module is coded, deployment should be very quick. --Rschen7754 02:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Perfect is the enemy of good. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be true in most areas of Wikipedia, but the roads project is actually active; in fact, one portion of the template was converted last night. --Rschen7754 17:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Template:Jct has over 190 subtemplates to streamline: I have looked at the subtemplates of Template:Jct, which seems like a major long-term chore to transition enough of them to be faster in Lua script, so I have instead tested "" (below). -Wikid77 08:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:JctCA as 25x times faster
I have begun testing a new Template:JctCA (now saved), to quickly handle 9 formats of California road junctions: SR, SR-Bus (Business), US, I (Interstate), CR (County Route), and I &amp; SR together, or "to2=1" combinations: SR&SR, SR&US or SR&CR. The speed of {JctCA} is running 25x faster than {Jct} to format the table for "California State Route 1" in 8 seconds, rather than 18 seconds. So, {JctCA} can format 160 road junctions per second. That speed would allow the road-exit tables to remain in each article, but still edit-preview without the timeout errors. -Wikid77 08:38/10:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's great, but that's a bandaid solution. We should be converting Jct to Lua, not forking a template. --Rschen7754 08:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but {JctCA} with bandaid will be active while {Jct} undergoes "87 surgeries" to transition the 190 Jct subtemplates into Lua. The 23 wp:CS1 cite templates took us months to rewrite to correctly match the formats in Lua, and some are still not transitioned yet. -Wikid77 10:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Where are you getting 87? Many of the modules perform similar functions, so it won't take that long. In the meantime, I would oppose any conversion to this new template. --Rschen7754 17:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Converting to a new template and back is several hundred edits we won't have to make if we just do it the right way and fix jct. WP:NODEADLINE and all that. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, looking at the code, the template is faster because it removes features that Jct has, and also does not handle certain cases properly. Please do not deploy that anywhere. --Rschen7754 07:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also agreed, and I will strenuously oppose any fork of the main template being used. In fact, this forked template does not display items as they are done now, moving a second highway marker graphic into the middle of the line, which contravenes MOS:RJL which says: "Route marker graphics should always appear at the beginning of the line." Please, let's just continue on the Lua conversion of the primary template, which will benefit all of the US and several other countries' articles instead of forking out a one-off template for a single state.  Imzadi 1979  →   07:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

SR 1 in Oxnard in US 101 article
For SR 1 updates in US 101 article, see discussion on the talk page Fettlemap (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on California State Route 1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100823145427/http://dot.ca.gov/dist1/d1projects/simpson_lane/ to http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist1/d1projects/simpson_lane/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111202003424/http://members.cox.net:80/mkpl2/hist/hist.html to http://members.cox.net/mkpl2/hist/hist.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111004040123/http://www.ksbw.com/news/27237744/detail.html to http://www.ksbw.com/news/27237744/detail.html

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

SR 1/US 101 in Oxnard
For discussions about SR 1 and US 101 through Oxnard (including discussions about Rice Avenue), please post comments on Talk:U.S. Route 101 in California. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on California State Route 1. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100707164120/http://www.la84foundation.org/6oic/OfficialReports/1932/1932s.pdf to http://www.la84foundation.org/6oic/OfficialReports/1932/1932s.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on California State Route 1. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121014034331/http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=shc&group=00001-01000&file=250-257 to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=shc&group=00001-01000&file=250-257
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101103112619/http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=shc&group=00001-01000&file=260-284 to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=shc&group=00001-01000&file=260-284
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006110038/http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=shc&group=00001-01000&file=300-635 to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=shc&group=00001-01000&file=300-635
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120603223528/http://www.cityofventura.net/files/file/comm-develop/Downtown/Survey%20Report%20FULL.pdf to http://www.cityofventura.net/files/file/comm-develop/Downtown/Survey%20Report%20FULL.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Length
(not counting breaks (concurrencies))

I-5 US 101 US 101 US 101 I-280 US 101/Golden Gate Bridge US 101
 * Orange 33.72
 * Los Angeles 62.87
 * Ventura 21.08
 * Ventura 28.48-21.25
 * Santa Barbara 36.50-40.03+50.61
 * San Luis Obispo 16.77
 * San Luis Obispo 74.63-16.78
 * Monterey 102.03
 * Santa Cruz 8.26-8.06+37.45
 * San Mateo 47.80
 * San Mateo 48.56-48.34
 * San Francisco 7.32
 * Marin 50.51
 * Sonoma 58.58
 * Mendocino 10.58-10.64+13.22-13.26+25.96-26.44+49.94-50.03+51.54-51.87+52.53-52.64+56.06-56.73+65.15-65.16+66.05-66.07+81.70-82.01

total 548.59

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPUI (talk • contribs) 10:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Increasing Article Class
Comparing this article, which is rated C class, to several other Featured Article class articles about other California State Routes (California State Route 52 – California State Route 56 – California State Route 57 – California State Route 67 – California State Route 75 – California State Route 76 – California State Route 78 – California State Route 94), this article does not have any major gaps in quality (that I can find) when compared to the other featured articles. I think it's ready to be considered for Good Article status (and someday soon, maybe even a Featured Article).

-- Charlesreid1 (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think so - too much uncited material, too many details missing from the history. --Rschen7754 00:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Any opinion on which sections are most in need of improvement? What kind of details are you looking for in the history that are missing? -- Charlesreid1 (talk) 04:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a lot of construction details. Some geographical sections are overrepresented and some, especially the parts through LA and SF, are not well represented. Go to the newspaper archives and do research, and look for books published (which I am sure there are) and you will find more details. Also not a lot about how US 101 and its converting to freeway impacted things. --Rschen7754 05:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)