> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Letter: Where Route 66 really ended in Santa Monica
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/032307-story-20070323/
- Published: 2007-03-23T15:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-24T00:17:20.000Z
- Author: Guest Author
- Tags: Opinion, Pier, #archive-import

*By David Newberg*

(Re: “The pier is still the end of the line,” March 8, letters) There are many different viewpoints and Web sites (all claiming their historical or authority credentials) that will state the exact point of the western end of Route 66\. The Federal Highway Administration definition is that an official highway starts and ends only at another highway, which would be somewhere on Highway 2 or Lincoln Boulevard. Of course, we are talking about a highway that had a functional life of just over 30 years.

But let’s take a second and think if there was any other points that were “close enough to count” for these weary travelers from the Midwest and other landlocked areas, they could have felt was the end of their western travel.

Could it be that they stopped at Palisades Park to enjoy the vistas of the Santa Monica Bay and seeing the Pacific Ocean for the first time?

Could it be that they made a right and drove down the California Incline to enjoy the “Gold Coast,” public beach clubs, the beach, wade in the water or continue their travel along the coastline?

Could it be that they continued on Lincoln south to visit Pacific Ocean Park, or to see what that crazy Abbot Kinney was doing building canals in Venice?

Or, could it be the end of the line was to see family, friends or start a new life, as my grandfather did after graduating from the University of Chicago and coming out west in the ’20s?

Putting aside the fun of trying to separate fact, fiction and folklore, I question the wisdom of using a historical point of view for making a future decision in this case. You are comparing a time when cars and travel was more of a novelty, an adventure with plenty of wide open spaces to the current time were we are oversaturated with cars and the amount of open spaces is declining.

Because of the city’s excellent plan use and future vision, the downtown area has been given the green light to increase residential density, increase office space, build more parking and now the redo of Santa Monica Place. All of those events will greatly increase traffic in the area. Is it really good for the city, the residents and tourists to direct even more traffic though downtown just to drive under a sign? The 1550 & 1440 Lot (sites of former and the first beach clubs in the city) was built in the 1950s for additional beach usage and not for the pier, and they already exit onto PCH.

Is it not in the best interest of everyone to redirect more traffic to the underutilized south lots, create/promote a Tide Shuttle route to the pier and support the Beach Tram? Would this not give tourists (who could now take a picture underneath the sign without being run over — like the historical debut photo), and residents a little better quality of their experience with the pier?

As the pier(s) nears the marking of its 100th anniversary (2009), it could use this milestone as a break from the past and enter into a new era. Those crazy visionaries who took the idea of removing cars from Third Street would be proud after years of ebb and flow to see the amount of life and energy created on the promenade. Using the same idea could be the seed that is planted to revitalize, re-energize and rejuvenate the pier as it enters its next century of life.

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on March 23, 2007.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/032307.pdf?ref=smdp.com)