Talk:U.S. Route 101/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merging

I'm proposing a merge of the Oregon section to the main article so that we have consistancy among US Highways and Interstates that cross state lines. We had previously come to a loose consensus that interstate roads (both Interstates and US Highways) would only have 1 article as to keep Wikipedia less cluttered.Gateman1997 22:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I was the one who separated out (and greatly expanded) the Oregon-specific content; I did the same to U.S. Highway 97 and U.S. Highway 30. I have no objection per se, but I have a few questions and concerns:

• On the US Highway pages, there is frequently very little state-specific information (just a summary if nothing more); in comparison, many state highway pages are significantly more detailed. Were US Highway pages to be expanded to include the detail in the various state highway pages (especially the California pages, which are highly detailed), it might make for some very long pages--especially for transcontinental routes like U.S. Highway 30 which traverse numerous states.
• More specifically, many US highway pages don't list things like intersections with state routes, etc.

Where this level of detail should go--in a per-state page, or on the main page--I don't have a strong opinion. I do like the main page being a national summary, with the ability to drill down on state pages--but if a super-long national page is what folks prefer, I've no issue. What I do want to ensure is that detailed information on interstate and US routes remains welcome on Wikipedia--it wouldn't make sense that extremely detailed pages like Oregon Highway 99 can exist for state routes, but pages with similar detail couldn't exist for federal ones. --EngineerScotty 22:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Agreed on splitting as information starts piling up. Not sure if U.S. Highway 101 (Oregon) or U.S. Highway 101 in Oregon would be a better title. --SPUI (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with merge... but long pages are bad... keep in mind that a CASR and WASR WP will eventually come and add stuff. --Rschen7754 03:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • True, but I think it's time we start deciding what we want to include in an article too. I think we may be over doing it with info. For instance there is no real need to have EVERY state highway interchange listed on the pages. It's irrelevant to most people and frankly I think it clutters the page more then it adds to the page's overall usefulness. Gateman1997 07:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• • To put it another way: To what extent should Wikipedia be a road geek site? Much of the detail on some of the pages is of absolutely no use to the general public (nor to transportation engineers/officials, who have access to the more accurate primary sources maintained by transportation authorities)--it's only of interest to road geeks. Things like mileage logs, exit lists, detailed lane configurations, etc. could be considered to be unencyclopedic. It's nice to have such information in wiki form (as opposed to closed websites like aaroads, etc--though they do a nice job), but is the Wikipedia the right place for this? Perhaps a road geek wiki (hosted by wikipedia, but in a separate namespace) should contain this stuff instead, with wikipedia only hosting general-interest content on major routes? -- --EngineerScotty 17:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
    • That's how I'm starting to feel. I'm a road geek for sure (heck I have several highway shields and a traffic light in my house), but I think the infoboxes are starting to get out of control, as is the detail of the information. Encyclopedias tend to be gateway's to knowledge, not the accumulation of all knowledge. A seperate road wiki might be the answer. Have the super detailed articles there and more basic info on Wikipedia. Gateman1997 17:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
    • A question: How big is the road geek community here on Wikipedia? I've been doing Oregon stuff; lots of people have been working on California; there's quite a bit of material on Washington. I haven't looked at non-West Coast states yet; but I assume that many others are also well-represented. Several of us are having this discussion here; but are there lots of others who might contribute to developing a consensus, and/or proposing such a project? What about other countries--some of us might find reading about the M4 motorway just as interesting as, say, I-5. --EngineerScotty 20:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Check out the WPs: Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways. I would not be opposed to such a project as long as the work we have already doesn't get thrown out. --Rschen7754 23:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Major Cities/Towns

Not to nitpick, but the article infobox on the side lists Olympia, WA as a major city/town (over 100,000 pop.). Olympia has a population of 42,514 as of 2000. When considering the municipalities listed here, is it really strictly binding around the 100,000 population mark? If so, are you counting the metro area in population estimates? Could this be considered misleading? Just curious. I wasn't going to change anything because Olympia is an important landmark for 101. Rkitko 10:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strictly speaking Olympia shouldn't be on there.Gateman1997 16:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Move

If anyone wants to know why I reverted the move, see Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Highways. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Please get a consensus before moving the page! --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

There was never any consensus to move this page in the first place. I was simply moving it back to its original name. Nohat 18:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Link Spam?

Could the last edit by 70.176.158.100 be considered Link spam? From what I can see, this person has only made edits which create links to the same site: Western Exit Guide - US-101 California (or links to Western Exit Guide, but to a different section). Otherwise, I think this site could be a valuable resource, though I question the intentions of the poster (altruism or trying to get more hits for their webpage?) Forgive me if I've misread the link spam page. I'm relatively new to wikipedia and still finding my way... Thanks! Rkitko 09:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The site doesn't appear to be selling anything or even contain any ads. It also contains information that is relevant to the article that is not already duplicated in the article. Regardless of the poster's motives, I can't really imagine deleting it for being linkspam. Nohat 09:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up! Makes a lot of sense. Rkitko 09:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Solona beach

User:86.82.170.205 wrote the following in the article; I've moved it here:

I lived in Solana Beach for a few years and 101 is still very much NOT decommisioned! it is the coastal highway, the route you take if you want to avoid the jams on I5 and if you want to enjoy the coastline and wonderful restaurants. It goes from north San Diego all the way to Oceanside non-stop.

To which I respond

The former roadway exists; however it is no longer designated as US 101. It may be designated locally as "Old Highway 101", and locals may refer to it as Highway 101, but as a matter of law, US 101 ends in Los Angeles. --EngineerScotty 21:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Clarification against US 1

Under the normal convention of things, Highway 101 should be a spur or other related route of US 1. Of course, that's impossible since they're on opposite sides of the country. Perhaps someone could find out (and put on the page) why the designation was allowed. --WhosAsking 16:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• I've been looking for years and I don't think there is any official explaination other then 101 comes after 99 in the odd number scheme. Perhaps they built US99 not knowing that they'd need one more number further west? I don't think it's something we need concern ourselves with however as it's largely irrelevant to anyone but super road geeks.Gateman1997 18:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • All the stuff at [1], as well as the 1925 log, indicates that US 101 was always in the system from the earliest plans:
    • So I went ahead on that basis. As you know, the U.S. is about twice as wide as it is from North to South, and with this I saw a complete pattern of just what I wished. It stares one in the face, it is so simple and so adjustable. With north-south roads numbered odd from east to west, and east-west roads numbering even from north to south, you at once start a simple, systematic, complete, expansible pattern for a long time development.
    • Numbered on the 10's; 10, 20, 30, etc., to 90 would provide nine principal east-west routes. Numbered on the 11's and 5's; 1, 5, 11, 15, etc., to 101 on the Pacific Coast, you would provide the 20 [sic - 101 makes 21] base routes for the north-south pattern. [2]
  • --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Disputed language

I take issue with the following:

U.S. Route 101 once was the major north-south link along the Pacific coast. It has been replaced in importance by the highways of the Interstate Highway System, specifically Interstate 5 (I-5), which are more modern in their physical design. Note that this highway is still in use as an alternative to the Interstates throughout its entire length. One of the notable exceptions is where the alignment of I-5 is on the alignment of U.S. Route 101 (that is, the pavement is the same but the route number changed to I-5 and U.S. Route 101 was decommissioned) beginning about one mile (1.6km) east of downtown Los Angeles and continuing south to San Diego.

North of LA, 101 hasn't been replaced by any Interstate; nor is there any Interstate (other than the various x80s in the Bay Area) that come close. Also, north of Sacramento and the Bay area, U.S. Route 99 (which has been replaced as a primary connector by I-5) and not 101 is the primary north-south link; at least if you want to reach major Northwest cities such as Medford, Eugene, Salem, Portland, Vancouver WA, Olympia, Tacoma, or Seattle--none of which (save for Olympia) 101 comes anywhere close to.

101, north of LA, has always served a different corridor than does I-5 or 99. Perhaps it was at one point the primary route between LA and San Francisco, before I-5 and I-580 were built. But other than that, I-5 and 101 are so far apart that the claim above needs modification. --EngineerScotty 19:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The Pacific Highway - the main north-south route in the west - ran mostly along US 99, only using US 101 south of San Francisco. This is because US 101 is right along the ocean north of SF, and is thus harder to build (due to more bridges) than an inland route. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 13:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, US101 is significantly inland through Marin County and other points north of SF; CA 1 and US 101 diverge for quite a distance, with CA 1 hugging the coast. However, part of your point is correct--the Pacific coastline gets more rugged and difficult to build on the further north you go. Through much of Oregon, the coastline is essentially mountains rising out of the ocean, which is a major reason that Oregon coastal towns are mostly small. --EngineerScotty 13:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Alternative

101 isn't an alternative to 5 in the San Francisco Bay Area: 5 doesn't come anywhere near it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.120.78 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is: you can take either I-5, then California State Route 152 to get to the Bay Area, or U.S. 101 all of the way (if you are coming from Los Angeles). If the Grapevine is closed due to snow, 101 becomes the only viable major route between SF and LA. -- hike395 05:01, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually he's right to an extent. I-5 is the primary for the north and east bay regions. For the penninsula and south bay 101 is the primary route, the CA-152 to 5 route is the secondary route as it takes the same amount of time to get to LA using it and crossing 152 is very dangerous.Gateman1997 22:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, what I had originally meant was that you wouldn't take I-5 from any place in the Bay Area to any other place in the Bay Area. US-101 is the only freeway that goes from Santa Rosa to San Jose. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 17:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, with the improvements to 152, I'd say it's definitely supplanted 101 as the primary route for the southern penninsula and south bay to get to LA. The road isn't nearly as slow or dangerous as it used to be. Torc 08:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Wrote a new page, U.S. Highway 101 (Oregon) which describes the route through Oregon in great detail. Roadgeeks from Washington and California might consider doing the same for their states (much of the California material on the main page might be moved, to shorten the main page).

--192.65.41.20 22:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Encinitas? I don't think so!

A photo toward the bottom of the article is claimed to be a photo of "the 101" in Encinitas. However, it is firmly established earlier in the article that the southern terminus of 101 is east of LA, considerably north of Encinitas, which is in San Diego county. If the photo is of a road that was FORMERLY a part of 101, then that should be clearly stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesiz (talk • contribs) 11:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

California section

It appears as if the California section on this article is almost as long as (if not longer) than the U.S. Highway 101 in California article, growing from IP user contributions who apparently miss out on the fact that there is an article specific to this topic. Would anyone like to help take a stab at merging what information isn't repeated into U.S. Highway 101 in California and leave only a small overview paragraph on this article? The link to the main article on 101 in California already exists, why duplicate the info? --Rkitko 20:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Opinions anyone? Bueller? Bueller? -Rkitko 04:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I say NO. US 101 runs nearly from the Mexican border to the Canadian border. If anything, U.S. Route 101 in California information should be merged into U.S. Route 101. To merge part of the main article into a sub-article smacks of parochialism. Moreover, it is inconsistent with most of the other articles on the U.S. Highway system. The information in U.S. Route 101 in California could be considerably shortened by chopping out the tedious detail about Major intersections. That detail has no place in Wikipedia; anyone planning a trip would be better served using a road atlas or electronic map service. —Quicksilver^{T @} 21:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's inconsistent. See Category:U.S. Routes by state and its subcategories. There are many articles in the format of U.S. Route X in State. Moreover, merging the information from the section on this page into U.S. Route 101 in California and deleting duplicated information would be in line with WP:SUMMARY. It's not a sub-article, it's another article split off from the main one, but editors continually added information to this page instead of the more specific article about U.S. 101 in California. Merging the information is in line with Wikipedia policy. I just haven't done it yet because it's such a big task and I'm focused on other topics. --Rkitko ^(talk) 21:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

THis is standard operation for WP:USH: please take it up there. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mean to leave this message for User:Hydrargyrum. What I'm proposing seems to be consistent with WP:USH practices--writing in summary style here for the U.S. Route 101 in California article and moving relevant information to the more specific article. What's written now in the California section on this article is not summary style. A paragraph or two is all that is needed. --Rkitko ^(talk) 22:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Correct. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed the article as a result of looking for continuity and designation as the Redwood Highway. When I found the section on Northern California I noticed three things that were glaring. Highway 101 was not important in the creation of Redwood National Park, unless the reference led to increased awareness that led to future development of the park. Placement of the Park along the highway is simply due to the fact that US 101 traverses the region in the narrow Redwood belt (never more than 30 miles wide). The building of "Highway 101" (not "The 101" as longtime locals on the California North Coast never refer to this only major highway) specifically led to early creation efforts in the California State Park system by the Save the Redwoods league. This dramatic story involves the now devastated (and bankrupt) Pacific Lumber Company (once a model firm) and activists from San Francisco early in the 1900's. This occurred in the 1920's, sadly long before Redwood National Park was a twinkle in anyone's eye. Secondly, there was "lots" of specifics on what I would call Central Los Angeles County and the San Francisco Bay Area with no detail north of there (or south for that matter). Thirdly, the reference to I 280 was confusing to say the least, possibly leaving the reader with the impression that I 280 connects Sonoma and Marin Counties to SF. Which is absolutely false. I then added the same level of detail as I saw to fill in the area north of SF (with plans to do the Central Coast next). AFTER doing so, I realized that there are daughter articles, this discussion, and so forth. Despite adding what may be too much detail for what ought to be a summary only of said daughter articles, I am convinced that the model (of detail) in the main US 101 article suggested that much detail was appropriate. I stand beside the corrections relating to the issue of Redwood National Park and the confusing description including I 280. I believe my additions and error of "too much detail" is exactly the point of the discussion above. Having read this and now commenting after, I will await to see what happens. I agree that the California section needs to be substantial. For example, in a quick review of the U.S. Route 40 article (showcased at this time) in the Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Highways, I can see that the main article needs to provide some detail in addition to sweeping statements or generalizations. I also think the main article ought to detail the fact that the northern section of around 400 miles is the Redwood Highway. I realize the US 40 Article does not have daughter articles to the extent of this article, but there must be some happy medium in the summaries.

Norcalal 07:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"The 101" vs "101"

Regarding this change (c.f. to previous version): based on personal observation and confirmation from Northern California residents, "the 101" is also used there, not only in SoCal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.96.188.245 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 28 February 2006.

As a Fifty year resident of the Bay Area, I only hear it called "The 101" by transplants from Southern California. Schmiteye 03:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

And "SoCal" and "NorCal" are also foreign to me. Those same people call "El Camino"..."The El Camino". Doink! Schmiteye 03:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Schmiteye's reversion. The "the freeway name" vs. "freeway name" distinction being a northern California/southern California linguistic distinction is well known. Nohat 06:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I heard the KRON 4 weatherman say "The 280" yesterday. Grrrrrr! Schmiteye 17:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably a transplant from SoCal. Locals of the north NEVER user "the" before a route's number. It's just not done and is well known and documented. Gateman1997 02:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I have never, ever heard anyone in Northern California say "the 101." The unsigned poster perhaps knows people who grew up in Southern California and now live in the Bay Area. Old habits die hard. Moncrief 13:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I grew up in San Diego County during the 50s and 60s, and I never heard anyone use "the" as part of a numbered highway's name. It was always (nunmber), are sometimes "Highway X" or "US X" or "State X" as appropriate. Wschart 17:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've lived in Newbury Park 3.5mi from the subject road since 1978, and I've never heard "The 101" or any other moniker (including Ventura Freeway). It is called "one-oh-one" by ALL!LorenzoB 03:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"Aligned along"?

What does it mean to be "aligned along" the coast? US 101 is not Highway 1; it doesn't weave along the coastline in most places. It's merely a north-south highway relatively close to the coast, but why say it's "aligned along" the coast (a vague phrase) or compare it to the East Coast's Highway 1. If anything US 1 in California is such a highway, not 101. Moncrief 22:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It may not hug the coast at all points, but that's mostly because of topography, I assume. Brainstorm some ideas to replace the confusing language of "aligned along" here. I personally can't think of anything that would suit the description. One more thing, though: there is no US Route 1 in California. I assume you're speaking of California State Route 1. --Rkitko 00:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It hugs the coast at very, very few points - not just "not at all points." I don't think you need anything about "alinging with the coast" at all. Any north-south highway in the United States, no matter how far inland, could be said to "align" (if by "align," you mean "be parallel to") with the coast. I'd just say it's a north-south highway. Considering how far it is from the coast in parts of northern California well north of the Bay Area, I wouldn't say anything at all about the coast in the intro. And I would NOT compare it to the East Coast's Highway 1, which is a much less-traveled road that is more like CA1 than US 101. Why compare it to a road 3000 miles away in the intro anyway? Moncrief 13:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it may be prudent to note that in the California section, if you think it needs to be mentioned. I assume you live in California? I'm in Washington state and sometimes I operate from a Washington-centric perspective concerning these US Routes and it's hard for me to remove myself and look at the routes in other states. I think "align" is supposed to indicates that this US Route is the last US Route before the coast. I don't think it's meant to indicate that it's parallel to the coast. (I blame language for being too limiting). I also think the purpose of including US Route 1 in the intro is not to compare, but to include pertinent information. We are, afterall, talking about the two "bookend" Routes. It's also important that people reading the article realize that 101 is not a spur of 1--an important point since this is how a spur of US 1 would be numbered. --Rkitko 16:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that US 1 is nowhere near the easternmost US route. US 13 and US 17 (as well as secondary routes like US 301) are further east. --EngineerScotty 18:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If speaking in terms of longitude, US 1 is the easternmost US route (in Maine), but obviously other routes cross over it to become the coastal route in states like Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. However, my point is that the designation as US 1 or US 101 indicates that it is the first or last US route in the numbering scheme after (or before) the coast. While that may not true in all cases, it's generally true. I suppose I'm saying that I think this deserves to be noted, somehow, with exceptions noted? -Rkitko 19:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you certain that these highways were given their "1" and "101" names because they were meant to be the westernmost and easternmost US highways? Do you have a link for that? If you want to re-include the information, I would do so somewhere deep inside the article. Introductions are for important information about the subject itself. Moncrief 18:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

We are absoulutely NOT talking about the two "bookend" routes, neither on the west or, as EngineerScotty says, on the east coast. US 1 on the East Coast is not an equivalent of US 101 in any demonstrative way -- not in terms of the level of traffic, the general importance, the basis as a major freeway in two large metropolitan areas, or pretty much in any way at all other than the fact that both highways are relatively close to an ocean. And don't assume I live in California. Why does it matter where I live?

Could you point me to any definition of "align" that means "something that is the last something before something"? If you take "align" to mean "the last US route before the coast," you must have a different dictionary than I do. Why not just say "It's the last US highway before the coast"? Moncrief 18:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It's obvious our opinions differ. I sense some hostility in your reply, so I respectively bow out of this conversation. I don't think it's going to be productive at all if we continue in this manner. Best, Rkitko 18:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Howzabout "Roughly Parallels"?LorenzoB 03:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

long distance mileage signs

• Thousand Oaks, California - A northbound mileage sign lists San Francisco for the first time (394 miles) at the CA-23 freeway interchange, though San Francisco is not the official control city until the freeway reaches Ventura, approximately 30 miles away.
• So I am not the only one to have noticed that! Another possible source of confusion for visitors; suddenly, no mo Ventura direction! Along with "Rancho Rd" and "Rancho Conejo Blvd" exits about three miles apart.03:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)My name didn't showLorenzoB 03:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Mountain View, California - There is a southbound mileage sign that posts Los Angeles for the first time (404 miles), though the control city is still San Jose (14 miles) and it is roughly 50 miles faster to L.A. via the Pacheco Pass (CA-152) and Interstate 5 through the San Joaquin Valley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polaron (talk • contribs) 23:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Cardinal directions

Something I've wondered: at the north end of the route, in Washington, 101 circles around the Olympic Mountains. For several miles it runs east-west, and then for around 85 miles it runs north-south again. So...how do they designate that section, from Port Angeles to Olympia? Do they still call it North 101 even though you're headed due south, or are there two parallel segments of 101 that share the same north-south designation? Torc 08:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The area from Port Angeles to Olympia is signed South 101. Everyday I travel to school from the Olympia terminus of 101, North on 101 to Evergreen State College and 101 is signed North on that section. If I continued driving on North 101 from Olympia, I would eventually be on West 101 and then South 101 (toward Oregon) if I continued to travel in the same direction on the road. I had wondered that as well until I actually took a drive around the peninsula. -Rkitko 16:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I found that especially interesting, as the road curves so gradually that the change in direction is scarcely perceptible, especially when the sky is overcast. Traffic reporters in the Los Angeles area sometimes use the term "northwest" in lieu of north or west, and "south east" in lieu of south or east. I thought that a good convention, especially for newcomers.LorenzoB 03:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

---

"Because Highway 101 forms the main street of almost all of the coastal towns in Oregon (with the exception of Cannon Beach), it is frequently congested and slow."

For what it's worth, 101 is not the main street of Manzanita either... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.229.171 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 23 December 2004 (UTC)

"The most scenic portion of Highway 101 within California is in Humboldt County, where... " -- This is debatable; the freeway does pass through the Golden Gate Bridge, after all. Making this "A scenic portion...". --Srini91 10:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

101 is not called the "Pacific Highway" within Oregon; the designation "Pacific Highway" is generally used with Oregon Highway 99 (including 99E and 99W). ODOT also applies the term "Pacific Highway" to Interstate 5 in Oregon, though this usage is generally not found among folks who aren't highway engineers or road geeks.

The most common term for 101 in Oregon is either "Pacific Coast Highway" or "Oregon Coast Highway". User:EngineerScotty 15:23, 24 Jun 2004 (PDT)

Same for Washington: "Pacific Highway" means 99, not 101. The street signs in Des Moines and Federal Way, Washington still say "Pacific Highway South". In the Canadian customs office on the border there are photos circa 1900 with the caption "Pacific Highway crossing". (This is at the truck crossing slightly east of I-5: SR 543 in Washington and Hwy 15 in Canada. US 99 did go through this general area, and I-5 turns into Canadian highway 99.) I deleted the part about "Pacific Highway" referring to 101 in Washington but left it for California, since I don't know whether it's true there or not. --Sluggoster 08:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, 101 definitely does not go to Canada. The closest point is Port Angles, from which you can take a ferry to Victoria. 101 in Washington is sometimes called the "coast highway", but not consistently enough to mention in Wikipedia. --Sluggoster 08:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Southern terminus?

I came to this page specifically to see exactly where US 101 ended in California. The intro paragraph says "to the Mexican border", but in the info blurb box, it says it ends in Los Angeles. Upon further reading, it seems US 101 to Mexico has been decommissioned. Perhaps a knowledgeable user could explain or elaborate on its southern terminus and the history of its southern terminus? (also clean up the contradiction in the main article) Just a thought. Polihale 20:06, 4 April 2007‎ (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know what happened there. US 101 hasn't extended to the Mexican border since the 1960s, and it never went to the Canadian border. Does removing that sentence from the lead paragraph clear it up enough? Or were you looking for more? -- NORTH ^talk 23:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for being unregistered. However, I know that the signs for the 101 continue south of Los Angeles into Orange County, at least. I used to hitch-hike through the OC often, and the 101 was one of my main through-ways. It was, indeed, intact. Of course, it is possible that the signs were left there for historical reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.120.91.26 (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Roosevelt Highway?

I've found evidence that a former name for the route (or parts of the route) was Roosevelt Highway. Most of the information on the Internet is in blogs or tourism guides on Google Books. Do any road fans have a better source for this info so it can be added to the article? Thanks! Katr67 (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Common name

As of 10-Jan-2006, a A Google search for "U.S. Route 101" returns 772 results, whereas a similar search for "U.S. Highway 101" returns over 98,000 links. Clearly the most common name of this highway is "U.S. Highway 101" not "U.S. Route 101". Indeed, it seems as though the name "U.S. Route 101" is not just a minority usage, but a virtually unused marginal usage. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), I have moved this article accordingly. Nohat 18:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I do believe he's right in this case. Similar to California Highway 17 this article should remain here. I've lived in the Bay Area over 20 years and never heard 101 referred to as a "route" before this article was moved. Neither have I heard it referred to as "route" when visiting WA state or SoCal.Gateman1997 19:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This is opening a can of worms here- therefore we could move any article to whatever just because some people call it that. It's just opening the door to more confusion here. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

What's confusing is when an article has a title that has nothing to do with what the vast majority of people actually call the subject of the article. That's why we have the "common names" naming convention. The fear that obeying this convention will somehow leave Wikipedia an unnavigable mess is unfounded. Nohat 05:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, an uneditable mess. So we could just move U.S. Route 50 to Loneliest Road just because people call it that? This is why we need to use discretion with common names. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No. "U.S. Route 50" gets 37,000-some results from Google whereas "Loneliest Road" only gets about 19,000. However, "U.S. Highway 50" gets over 93,000, so the most common name of that road is "U.S. Highway 50", which is where it should be moved back to. Again, the fear that it will be too complicated is overstated. Wikipedia has gotten along quite well with this naming convention for several years, and it will continue to do so, because it's a good naming convention. It benefits those who are most important to the project: the readers. Nohat 06:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Then let's ask for all the routes to be moved back to "Highway" then. If we do one, let's do them all. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

How about internationally-speaking? What's the general naming convention for major roads in other countries--highway or route? Which would they be able to identify with more? Or does that not matter here because these articles are traditionally of regional/national interest? Rkitko 07:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I would say they're regional interest. However Google is international and it also seems to favor highway.Gateman1997 08:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that all the U.S. Routes articles should be moved back. However, if there are a few cases where the "route" name can be shown to be significantly more common than "highway", then I would say they should be kept at "route" titles, such as U.S. Route 66. Nohat 09:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Please fix the double redirects when you move a page. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

AW heck, let's bring it into (sort of) compliance with the Interstate numbering scheme by calling it "10.1".LorenzoB —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with renaming US Routes to US Highways. Let's please maintain some consitency here! Why do you think Wikipedia has "redirects" and "disambiguation pages"? To direct people to the right article when people are searching for a different name than what the actual article is named! This is one of those cases where I am totally disgusted with Wikipedia's WP:COMMONNAME policy, another case being with Big Ben. [|Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) |] 05:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"Pacific Coastal Highway"?

The page Pacific Coastal Highway was deleted with the comment "No proof this designation actually exists; sources used are used synthesis-style. Google search turns up zero hits." Searching in Google for

"Pacific Coastal Highway" -"Pacific Coast Highway"

turns up some claims of its existence, such as http://www.lundbc.ca/mile0markerproject.html#pacificcoastalhighway, which claims that, in the US, "Highway 5", presumably meaning Interstate 5, is part of the "Pacific Coastal Highway", and a lot of travelogs referring to a "Pacific Coastal Highway" that's more than just the Pacific Coast Highway (which doesn't include I-5). So who designated some roads from Canada to Chile as the "Pacific Coastal Highway", and is US 101 part of it or not? Guy Harris (talk) 05:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 10:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support. The naming convention for United States Numbered Highways is "U.S. Route X". There's no reason for this article to continue existing, alone^[3], at the wrong title. It's been moved to U.S. Route 101 numerous times, continuously being reverted by the same user. It's time to put an end to it. — May. 5, '06 [04:09] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• Support for consistency within the system with what AASHTO now uses. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 04:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support per SPUI. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose of course. The perverse need to title an article something different from what most people actually call the subject of the article is jargon-itis and it must be fought. We are here to inform people, not to make neat little rows of articles that please a handful of obsessive-compulsive editors. People expect to find articles at the name they call something, and the wisdom of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) applies here, as it always has. Nohat 06:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC) Perhaps, instead of trying to railroad me, you all could endeavor to develop a naming convention for U.S. highways that harmonizes with the well-established naming conventions rather than one that clashes with them. Nohat 06:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support - AjaxSmack 07:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC).
• Support per freakofnurture.--Dakota ~ 19:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support. It is officially a "route". The more regionalized "highway" can be used on the individual state articles like U.S. Highway 101 in California. Gateman1997 19:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support It's the official name. To respond to Nohat, we can always redirect from the colloquial name. --Davidstrauss 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cultural references

I'm not a great fan of "in popular culture" sections, granted, but this article probably needs some to be a comprehensive overview of the subject. Such as California (Phantom Planet song), which is about the 101 and name-checks it in the lyrics. I can't actually find what we'd nominally call a reliable source, and the song article itself is largely unsourced, but I'm sure somebody must be able to dig out a source that verifies these basic facts. This discussion thread might have other ideas that can be worked on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, is the group Highway 101 named after this? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

It's only about one section of US 101, in California, and seemingly does not reference OR or WA at all. We don't need to stuff more crap into articles, especially a national summary article. SounderBruce 23:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh fine, I’ll go and work elsewhere. Have a nice life. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:U.S. Route 101/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dylan620 (talk · contribs) 02:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I have to admit I'm a little intimidated going in, as this will be by far the largest article I've yet reviewed... but seven months is an unacceptable wait for a review, I'm open to a challenge, and I do love the open road. I should be able to start looking at this within the next few days. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 02:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for picking this article up for review. I don't mind a wait given how long it is, and if you have any specific questions I am happy to answer them here. SounderBruce 03:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

No problem SounderBruce. I've just finished a full read-through of the article, and I have the following pieces of preliminary feedback:

• The prose itself is excellent. The writing is professional and engaging with proper grammar throughout. Excellent work!
• Some articles are linked too many times. For one example, Bayshore Freeway is wikilinked five times: first in the lede, then in §Route_description, next in the California subsection, and twice in §New_alignments_and_freeways (in a paragraph and an image caption). There are many more cases like this; the article uses a whole lotta blue, which unfortunately hinders its readability a bit. I also see several red links, but I think these should be kept as they seem like reasonable topics for future articles and the targets themselves are not excessively linked.

• Reduced to what I think is necessary, as MOS:DL was amended to allow for some duplicate links in their first use within a major section if it is helpful to readers, namely when first used in the History section.

• I find it a little odd that mile figures are hyphenated and yet kilometer figures are not (example: 40-mile (64 km)). I also think it would make sense to abbreviate mile(s) to mi, so as to maintain consistency with the usage of the km abbreviation.

• This is handled by the conversion template, which cites MOS:UNITNAMES as a reason to not hyphenate between the value and symbol in that manner.

• El Camino Real is italicized on its first usage in the lede, but is not italicized again for the rest of the article; it is the only alternate name to be italicized at all.

• Fixed, though I may have to add it back in the route description since it is a Spanish term.

I anticipate reading the article in full at least once more during the course of my review. Knock on wood, I should be able to analyze images, sources, and copyright within the next two to three days. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Wanted to drop a quick update that the full review is nearly finished – barring unforeseen meatspace developments, I should have it posted tomorrow late morning or early afternoon (ET). Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 01:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Images: All of the images used in the article contribute encyclopedic value to it and are licensed appropriately. There are a couple that were taken from copyrighted Flickr uploads, but comparisons between the Flickr license histories and the Commons upload dates confirm that those images were uploaded to Commons at times when the Flickr uploads were licensed under Creative Commons; therefore, the CC license applies in both of those cases, and the images are safe to use. I would like for alt text to be added, but as that would be going into FAC territory, I will not factor it into this review. Image review passes.
• Sources: This is where things get a little shakier. I'm not concerned about the veracity of the information here – a "spot check" of over 30 or 40 sources confirmed that those sources verified the information they were used to cite. The sources themselves appear to be reputable, as well. However, there are some irregularities that I believe should be addressed. Source review on hold: see concerns below.
  • Refs 2, 8, and 53 are dead links.
    • All fixed.
  • Refs 103, 149, and 150 mention the San Francisco Chronicle as their source, but the links lead to the website for SFGate instead.
    • Until 2017, SFGate hosted its own content alongside copies of Chronicle articles; the newsrooms were also combined until 2019, which covers the range of these sources.
  • Wikilink formatting should be consistent throughout, and that isn't the case here. The style I see most often in this article's citations is that the website/publication/publisher is wikilinked on the first use, and then not wikilinked on subsequent citations. I recommend the following fixes to bring everything in line with this:
    • Ref 10: delink Oregon Department of Transportation
      • Fixed.
    • Ref 19: wikilink KCET
      • Fixed.
    • Federal Highway Administration is currently wikilinked on its third usage and none of the others; the link should be removed from ref 20, and added to ref 12 instead
      • Fixed.
    • Ref 26: wikilink The New York Times
      • Is there any particular reason why a parent publisher is listed on the fourth cited work from the NYT, but on none of the other three?
        • Citation 104 is from UPI, a news agency similar to the AP. The publisher is omitted for newspapers that have a similar name.
    • Ref 37: wikilink Associated Press
      • Fixed.
    • Ref 48: wikilink The Oregonian
      • Fixed.
    • Ref 54: wikilink The Seattle Times
      • Fixed.
    • Ref 77: delink The Sacramento Bee
      • Fixed.
    • Ref 80: delink California Department of Public Works
      • Fixed.
    • Ref 88: delink National Park Service
      • Fixed.
    • Ref 92: wikilink MeasuringWorth (and remove the space between those two words the second time the website is mentioned in the same citation)
      • This citation is handled by a template, where I have requested a change to be made.
    • Ref 126: delink Bureau of Public Roads
      • Fixed.
    • Ref 134: delink San Francisco Examiner
      • Fixed.
• Copyright: Earwig returned in the single digits, and I could not detect any issues on my own. Copyright review passes.
• Prose: As I mentioned last week, the article is beautifully written overall. It's comprehensive without veering into unnecessary detail, and the structure and word choices are generally easy to follow. However, there are a few potential kinks that I would like to be ironed out or explained. Prose review on hold: see concerns below.
  • A 16-mile (26 km) section of the existing HOV lanes from Redwood City to San Bruno were converted to high-occupancy toll lanes in 2023 ... → "section ... was"
    • Fixed.
  • ...Astoria, where it meets the western terminus of US 30, which continues into the city. – Could this be clarified? The current wording sounds contradictory, like US 30 is continuing into a city that it's already in to start with.
    • Fixed.
  • The issues I brought up in my preliminary comments last week are still relevant.
• Miscellaneous: I'm not going to factor these into my review, but I have a couple suggestions on how to improve the article further with sources that are already used in the article. This piece from Oregon Public Broadcasting (currently used as ref 11) mentions that there have been efforts to fix portions of the highway that have fallen into disrepair. Also, this piece published by The Sacramento Bee (currently used as ref 77) in the years after WWI highlights the "military value" of US 101. I think both of these aspects are interesting and could be worth incorporating into the article.

I tip my hat to you, Bruce; you've crafted a well-written, well-researched, and broad article on a major highway that runs along nearly the entire West Coast of the United States. It is quite close to meeting the GA criteria but needs just a liiiiiiittle more work to reach that mark. Putting on hold for now. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Dylan620: Thanks for the review. I have addressed the issues that were raised. SounderBruce 00:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

It's been a pleasure SounderBruce. All fixes and explanations look good to me. (There was a slight misfire wrt the NYT ref link, but as that is minor I have fixed it myself.) Passed. Thank you for your cooperation and your excellent work! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Review summary

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)