Talk:Hollywood Freeway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject U.S. Roads (Rated C-class, High-importance)
U.S. Roads WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article has a map. If the map has an error, please work with the maps task force to correct it.
This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the maps task force to correct it.


Should Hollywood Freeway be emrge to California State Route 170? Seems like most info carbon copies info from SR 170.--Freewayguy (Meet) 22:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It is now a disambiguation page. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 18:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Attempted article elemination.[edit]

One user is attempting to eliminate this article and merge it into a disambiguation page with the links to U.S. Route 101 and California State Route 170. This needs to be discussed and fleshed out by the community before such a major change can take place.

Like the Ventura Freeway, the Hollywood Freeway has two number designations on two different sections. In addition, the Hollywood Freeway is one of the most historic freeways in the world and easily passes WP:GNG in its own right.--Oakshade (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF; this has been the working practice of the WP:USRD project for years. --Rschen7754 01:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Rschen that the set index page is useful as a separate Hollywood Freeway article would be redundant to what is already covered in the US 101 and CA 170 articles. Dough4872 01:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
There's too much topic specific content to be included in either US 101 or CA 170 articles.--Oakshade (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I think Rschen and Dough's concerns (which are valid) is we don't want to have to maintain 2 articles about the same subject. However, I see two ways to solve that problem, and I hope this discussion focuses on that legitimate debate. Dave (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
My opinion, I don't see the need to have separate articles for Hollywood Freeway, CA-170 and US-101. US-101 should remain a separate article for obvious reasons. To me, that means the best solution is that there should be one article that covers the CA-170 and the Hollywood Freeway designations (more than fine for this article to state the Hollywood Freeway designation extends to US-101). The only question left is which title is the main article, and which title is the redirect. Frankly, I'd be ok with either option. However, there is no doubt that even outside of SoCal, the name "Hollywood Freeway" is better known than "California State Route 170". As such, I have no objection to having an article titled "Hollywood Freeway" with CA-170 as a redirect. Dave (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The Hollywood Freeway is not just CA-170, but in fact also US-101 - it doesn't just "extend to" US-101. The US-101 section, arguably the most famous section, starts (from the north) at the Ventura Freeway (US-101 and CA-134) interchange down to I-5. A Re-direct to CA-170 would just be factually inaccurate. --Oakshade (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Not if the article titled "Hollywood Freeway" covers the entire named designation and CA-170 redirects. However, fine, if we must go for 100% factual accuracy in article titles, than the best solution is to turn Hollywood freeway into a disambiguation page as Rschen proposes, as the numerical designations are the factually correct designations. Dave (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
You mean if CA-170 redirects to Hollywood Freeway? That would be a good redirect. --Oakshade (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's my take of why preserving the Hollywood Freeway article: It's an official separate entity than U.S. Route 101 and it would be inaccurate to describe it entirely as US 101 or just as California State Route 170. In Los Angeles on traffic reports, this route, whether it be the US-101 section or the CA-170 section, is almost always termed the "Hollywood Freeway", not "US 101" or "California 134." While US 101 is generally a north-south route, Caltrans designated the Ventura County and part of the Los Angeles County sections as the "Ventura Freeway" because in those sections it is an east-west route and then "US 101" regains its noth-south distinction as the "Hollywood Freeway" south of the Ventura Freeway-Hollywood Freeway interchange. In the 1960's, Caltrans added a north-south extension of the Hollywood Freeway north of the Ventura Freeway interchange. That extension is CA-170. The reason for the Ventura Freeway officially being designated over 2 different numbered routes is to avoid confusion for motorists so this entire east-west route is always known as the "Ventura Freeway" and the entire "Hollywood Freeway" is a north south route. There would be no problem to redirect CA-170 to the the Hollywood Freeway article, but redirecting the Hollywood Freeway to CA-170 is factually inaccurate as the CA1-70 is less than half of the Hollywood Freeway. Additionally, the Hollwyood Freeway is one of the world's most famous and historic freeways and deserves its own distinct article based on that alone. --Oakshade (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we are that far apart. I suspect you misunderstood my response. I'm saying I'm ok with having a "Hollywood Freeway" article that covers the entire length of the Hollywood Freeway, then having CA-170 redirect, which is essentially what you are proposing. I think this option has one more benefit, it could be used to shorten the US-101 article, as the portion covering the Hollywood freeway section could be replaced with a see also hatnote to "Hollywood Freeway". Dave (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
As my response to your comment above, yes, it seems we're thinking similarly here.
What also needs to be pointed out in general is the entire history section, which is sourced by reliable sources, would be inappropriate for either a CA-170 article - it covers the US-101 section - and in the US-101 article - it also covers the CA-170 section. --Oakshade (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The general problem with this merging is that neither SR 170 nor the Hollywood Freeway are part of each other. Obviously, this article can't be merged into US 101. Perhaps a merge between the two would work (under some title that I can't come up with), but if this article can be improved to standards, this article could remain separate. — PCB 15:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"neither SR 170 nor the Hollywood Freeway are part of each other" ?????? I don't think that's what you meant to say, because that's false. Perhaps, the named and numbered designations do not completely overlap? Dave (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

An argument for keeping the article is that the Hollywood Freeway is "one of the world's most famous and historic freeways." Really? Wow! I can't think of a single British motorway or German autobahn that falls into that elite and apparently fleeting category. From my Texas-based perspective, Hollywood Blvd. or Sunset, Wilshire, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, or even Rodeo Dr. are much more ingrained in the public consciousness than the Hollywood Freeway. While freeways may facilitate moving people from point A to B, they don't foster the kind of human interaction that streets with their shops and cafés enable. If anything, they are a blight on the urban landscape that divides neighborhoods and are subject to frequent freeway revolts. If someone were to ask me what freeway I would regard as famous or historic, I would say the Gulf Freeway between Houston and Galveston (and older than the Hollywood yet is a redirect) or Dallas' Central Distressway, but that's because of my own non-Cal perspective. Most people outside of Texas have probably never heard of either of them just as most people outside of California don't find the Hollywood impacting their lives.

How about this solution--Let's have USRD maintain the US-101 and CA-170 articles because of their status as state-sanctioned numbered highways. The Cal Project through its LA and SoCal task forces and perhaps with the Streets Project can maintain the Hollywood Freeway article including any popular culture info outside of the scope of USRD with the articles merely linking to each other. Fortguy (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll admit that may settle the debate at hand, but I find it hard to support a solution that will lead to redundant articles about the same topic, just to resolve stylistic differences. Dave (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd be fine with either of the two options Dave outlines. --Rschen7754 05:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

So it sound like having 2 articles, U.S. Route 101 in California and Hollywood Freeway, with California State Route 170 redirecting to the latter is the best way out of this mess. Is that how we want to move forward? I don't fully understand PCB's comments. Can we address that concern? I think he's referring to the fact that there is a small portion of CA-170 that is not part of the Hollywood freeway. However, that small piece of 2 lane CA-170 is a historical artifact that can be covered in the Hollywood Freeway article without being to big of a distraction, IMO. Dave (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I also think that is a good option.--Oakshade (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
That's exactly the point I was trying to get across. There is some part of SR 170 that is not part of the Hollywood Freeway. If they are to be merged together, then they most likely would have to have some weird composite title that I can't come up with, otherwise, I agree. — PCB 00:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there is any part of CA-170 that's not the Hollywood Freeway.--Oakshade (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Oh, I never knew about the Highland Avenue section. Now I don't know what to make of that. --Oakshade (talk) 00:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
My opinion, given that Highland Avenue already has a separate article, and that the Highland Avenue section of CA-170 is not well known, and is short, a couple of sentences in the Hollywood Freeway article explaining that CA-170 designation extends on to Higland Avenue (with a link) should cover it. Though not ideal, I think it's preferable to having separate articles for Highland Avenue, Hollywood Freeway and CA-170 when all 3 of those topics are closely related, and the articles would be highly redundant. Dave (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

There has been a very deep discussion here and there seems to be agreement between Moabdave, Rschen7754 and myself of Fortguy's suggestion

"Let's have USRD maintain the US-101 and CA-170 articles because of their status as state-sanctioned numbered highways. The Cal Project through its LA and SoCal task forces and perhaps with the Streets Project can maintain the Hollywood Freeway article including any popular culture info outside of the scope of USRD with the articles merely linking to each other. "

Are we still in agreement? --Oakshade (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that the disambiguation/set index page option is the best. Mackinac Trail opts for that, and it works quite well to deal with one name that encompasses sections of multiple roads. Imzadi 1979  05:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Very much apples and oranges. Different case here with a continuous road with the distinctive and Caltrans designated name "Hollywood Freeway" which also has a distinct history from the numbered roads, one of which traverses literally over 1,000 miles, which of course is not the case with the Michigan roads. --Oakshade (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I dunno, it's been called Mackinac Trail since the French and English were in the area after the Indian Trail, which is a longer history than some freeway in California. ;-) Imzadi 1979  05:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
You're correct about the Makinac Trail have a much longer history than the Hollywood Freeway, but the Hollywood Freeway is still the actual designation of then entire freeway portion of CA-170 and the US-!01 portion from CA-170 to the Four Level Interchange, all as a continuous official "Hollywood Freeway" designation. The Makinac Trail doesn't share such a distinction. --Oakshade (talk) 05:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
As a set index article, unlike a true disambiguation page, you can give a brief summary (emphasis on brief) of any distinctive details for the Hollywood Freeway name and leave the rest of the content in the US 101 and CA-170 pages. When I say brief, I mean a couple sentences, not a couple of paragraphs. Imzadi 1979  05:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
The content though is more than brief. In this talk page, I just re-printed the entire "History" section which needs to go somewhere and the "Hollywood Freeway" article is the only place for it. It's all based on published notable content.--Oakshade (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────A disambiguation page is definitely not the correct solution here, and I doubt that a set index article is either. A disambiguation page is used when a title potentially refers to several different topics. Here, the title "Hollywood Freeway" does not refer to two different roads; it refers to one road that goes from point A to point Z. The fact that the state route designation changes at point Q does not mean there are two separate roads. A set index article, as I understand it, lists topics that could potentially be called by the same title and also have something else in common; again, that doesn't quite fit here because there are not two distinct topics. I don't really have an opinion on which topic (the highway or the route designations) is more notable, and I don't particularly see why we can't have articles on both: (for some similar examples, see New York State Thruway, Interstate 87, Interstate 90 in New York; and Henry G. Shirley Memorial Highway, Interstate 95 in Virginia and Interstate 395 (District of Columbia-Virginia). But let's not use the word "disambiguation" as a synonym for "We can't decide what to call the article." --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing, with the exception that I can't explain it as well as R'n'B. This should not be a disambig. --JaGatalk 22:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Is there an agreement on the way forward we can all come to then? If we don't have a disambig, then shall we have a Hollywood Freeway article about the cultural history of it with links the the U.S. Route 101 in California and California State Route 170 or do we have a fully encompassing Hollywood Freeway article where California State Route 170 re-directs to it and a link is provided on the U.S. Route 101 in California article? --Oakshade (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Distinct "Hollywood Freeway" content[edit]

As this content is sometimes (and is currently) removed, here is the distinct Hollywood Freeway content that is out of place in the US-101 or CA-170 articles:

The Hollywood Freeway is one of the principal freeways of Los Angeles, California (the boundaries of which it does not leave) and one of the busiest in the United States. It is the principal route over the Cahuenga Pass, the primary shortcut between the Los Angeles Basin and the San Fernando Valley. It is considered one of the most important freeways in the history of Los Angeles and instrumental in the development of the San Fernando Valley.[1] It is the second oldest freeway in Los Angeles.[1]


Plans for the Hollywood Freeway officially began in 1924 when Los Angeles voters approved a "stop-free express highway" between Downtown Los Angeles and the San Fernando Valley.[1] The first segment of the Hollywood Freeway built was a one and a half mile stretch through the Cahuenga Pass. That segment opened on June 15, 1940. It was then known as the "Cahuenga Pass Freeway." Pacific Electric Railway trolleys ran down the center of this freeway until 1952. The next section of the freeway that stretched from the San Fernando Valley to Downtown Los Angeles opened on April 16, 1954 at a cost of $55 million. The final section, north of the Ventura Freeway to the Golden State Freeway was completed in 1968.[1]

A year after the Hollywood Freeway opened, it was used by an average of 183,000 vehicles a day, almost double the capacity it was designed to carry. Actor Bob Hope called it the "biggest parking lot in the world" in his routine.[1]

The segment through Hollywood was the first to be built through a heavily populated area and requiring the moving or demolition of many buildings, including Rudolph Valentino's house Falcon's Lair which was moved to Beverly Hills. The freeway was also designed to curve around KTTV Studios and Hollywood Presbyterian Church.[1] Much of the rubble and debris from the buildings removed for the freeway's construction was dumped into Chávez Ravine, the current home to Dodger Stadium.[1]

In 1967, the Hollywood Freeway was the first freeway in California that had ramp meters.[1]

Near the Vermont Avenue exit, there's a seemingly over-wide center strip now filled with trees. This is where the never-built Beverly Hills Freeway was to merge with the Hollywood Freeway. Plans for the Beverly Hills Freeway were halted in the 1970s.[2]

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h Simon, Richard (December 19, 1994). "Hollywood Freeway Spans Magic and Might of L.A.". Los Angeles Times. 
  2. ^ "Highways From Hell". Los Angeles Magazine. December, 1999. 

Keep the Hollywood Freeway as a separate and distinct article. Converting it into a DAB page was a terrible idea (and was done without consensus, at least four times, before discussion was undertaken). The article should be restored. I don't care what else you redirect TO it, but Hollywood Freeway is what the road is called and what it is notable as, and it deserves its own article. I realize that members of the WP:USRD want to have every road in the United States be consistently named according to their preference, but in this case (and other previously argued cases, such as the Ventura Freeway discussion here), the principle of WP:Common name trumps the desire of the working group for absolute consistency. The Hollywood Freeway is a recognized identity, and is virtually always referred to as the Hollywood Freeway by every Reliable Source [1], from the Los Angeles Times to People Magazine to the local radio traffic reporters. Sure, part of it is a segment of highway 101 (and part of it isn't), but highway 101 is 1500 miles long and can't possibly include all the historical and local information that is relevant in an article about this freeway. Restore the article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been going on for over a month and one thing that can be concluded is consensus is that disambiguation as what this was changed to is not the way to go. I will restore the Hollywood Freeway content. Whether we go with User:Fortguy's suggestion that we have USRD maintain the US-101 and CA-170 articles because of their status as state-sanctioned numbered highways and the Cal Project through its LA and SoCal task forces and perhaps with the Streets Project maintain the Hollywood Freeway, as indicated to be to be agreed upon by User:Rschen7754 (the original re-director to the disamb page), User:Moabdave and myself, but not perhaps everyone, can be discussed and edited with the restoration.--Oakshade (talk) 05:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)