The California State Road Gaps

[The High Plains Traveler]

^I would guess the creation of Kings Canyon National Park in 1940 killed any plans for extending 180 across the Sierras.

[polarscribe]

That, and frankly the topography of that portion of the Sierras is incredibly inhospitable to road-building.

The elevation of SR 180 at road's end is just over 5,000 feet. Onion Valley Road ends at around 9,200 feet. The logical pass in the area is 11,709-foot Kearsarge Pass. The space in between is a tortured mess of knife-edged granite ridges and plunging canyons. I think if they'd have tried it, it would have been the greatest feat of road engineering in the state... and a maintenance nightmare going from nowhere to almost-nowhere that would be closed by snow 9 months a year.

[AsphaltPlanet]

It's a little bit amazing that the state was once ambitious enough to conceive building some of the roads that were proposed through the Sierra Nevada's.  It's amazing they were able to build some of the roads that the did build.  The "freeway" segment of the Kern Canyon Highway is pretty cool, even if it is unnecessary, and from everything I have read about the Tioga Road (I have yet to drive it), it's pretty awesome.

[polarscribe]

The Tioga Road wasn't the state's doing at all, actually. It was originally a private toll road built to service the Tioga Mine at the crest of the Sierras. When the mine closed, the road started deteriorating... and then Yosemite National Park was declared. In 1915, Stephen T. Mather (first director of the NPS) spent $15,000 of his own money to buy the right-of-way and promptly donated it to the federal government to become part of the park. In the 1950s, it was rebuilt and massively realigned under the Mission 66 park infrastructure program, and it remains an NPS road. Hence, state maintenance ends at the boundary and you have to pay the entrance fee even if you only intend to drive straight through. (Same with 140 and 41.)

[TheStranger]

One sign for Route 170 remains on Highland! Always have been surprised how this road stayed in the system for years after the Laurel Canyon/La Cienga/LAX segment was cancelled. (also thought it odd the planned LAX segment, discontinuous, remained on the books for years when the Laurel Canyon portion was deleted legislatively)

[kkt]

The Tioga Road wasn't the state's doing at all, actually. It was originally a private toll road built to service the Tioga Mine at the crest of the Sierras. When the mine closed, the road started deteriorating... and then Yosemite National Park was declared. In 1915, Stephen T. Mather (first director of the NPS) spent $15,000 of his own money to buy the right-of-way and promptly donated it to the federal government to become part of the park. In the 1950s, it was rebuilt and massively realigned under the Mission 66 park infrastructure program, and it remains an NPS road. Hence, state maintenance ends at the boundary and you have to pay the entrance fee even if you only intend to drive straight through. (Same with 140 and 41.)

The realignment and rebuilding were massively expensive and cost about as much as starting from scratch would have.

It used to be possible to hike or ski tour along the old Tioga road.  My dad told me about doing that with some of his friends before I came along.  I'm not sure if that can still be done, though.

[emory]

One sign for Route 170 remains on Highland! Always have been surprised how this road stayed in the system for years after the Laurel Canyon/La Cienga/LAX segment was cancelled. (also thought it odd the planned LAX segment, discontinuous, remained on the books for years when the Laurel Canyon portion was deleted legislatively)

And CalTrans has no plans to delete Highland Ave from the SHS either. Santa Monica Blvd is more likely to go first.

edit: WAIT!

(b) The relinquished former portion of Route 170 within the City
of Los Angeles between Route 2 and Route 101 is not a state highway
and is not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For that
relinquished former portion of Route 170, the City of Los Angeles
shall maintain signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route
170.

When did this happen?!

[emory]

Going back to my original post about CA 39, the logs' definition of it has been updated to indicate an adopted route between 72 and I-10. It also shows that a chunk in Buena Park has been relinquished.

339.  Route 39 is from:
   (a) Route 1 near Huntington Beach to the southern city limit of
Buena Park.
   (b) Route 5 in Buena Park to Route 72 in La Habra via Beach
Boulevard.
   (c) Beach Boulevard to Harbor Boulevard in La Habra via Whittier
Boulevard.
   (d) Whittier Boulevard in La Habra to Route 2 via Harbor Boulevard
to the vicinity of Fullerton Road, then to Azusa Avenue, Azusa
Avenue to San Gabriel Canyon Road, San Gabriel Avenue southbound
between Azusa Avenue and San Gabriel Canyon Road, and San Gabriel
Canyon Road, other than the portion of the segment described by this
subdivision that is within the city limits of Azusa, Covina, and West
Covina.
   The relinquished former portions of Route 39 within the city
limits of Azusa, Buena Park, Covina, and West Covina are not state
highways and are not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the
relinquished former portions of Route 39, the Cities of Azusa, Buena
Park, Covina, and West Covina shall maintain within their respective
jurisdictions signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route
39.

[mrsman]

One sign for Route 170 remains on Highland! Always have been surprised how this road stayed in the system for years after the Laurel Canyon/La Cienga/LAX segment was cancelled. (also thought it odd the planned LAX segment, discontinuous, remained on the books for years when the Laurel Canyon portion was deleted legislatively)

And CalTrans has no plans to delete Highland Ave from the SHS either. Santa Monica Blvd is more likely to go first.

edit: WAIT!

(b) The relinquished former portion of Route 170 within the City
of Los Angeles between Route 2 and Route 101 is not a state highway
and is not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For that
relinquished former portion of Route 170, the City of Los Angeles
shall maintain signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route
170.

When did this happen?!

Growing up very close to this area in the 70's and 80's, I never saw a 170 sign on Highland.  I believe it was the early 90's when they started to put up the signs.  I also never saw the 187 signs on Venice Blvd.  Then LA started putting up the signs and I was very puzzled.  Caltrans never put up such signs.  There is no reference to 170 at the Highland exit off the 101 and there is no 187 sign on the I-10 or I-405 Venice exits.  I don't even believe that the signs are really that helpful.  You can use basically any exit in Hollywood to connect from the 101 to Santa Monica Blvd., the 170 signage can only confuse and in my opinion should be limited to the Hollywood Freeway between I-5 and 101/134.


If you're going to sign a route, sign it completely, including the nearby freeway exit signs.  If you're not going to sign a route, then get rid of it completely and greenout the exit signs.

[TheStranger]

is it me..or is 47 between 91 and 103 another example of this specific type of signage inconsistency found with 187 and the Highland Avenue segment of 170?  I have heard (though would need to check out in person) 47 from Anaheim Street north, along Alameda, is signed...yet there has never been acknowledgment of the route off 91 or 405.

[Occidental Tourist]

is it me..or is 47 between 91 and 103 another example of this specific type of signage inconsistency found with 187 and the Highland Avenue segment of 170?  I have heard (though would need to check out in person) 47 from Anaheim Street north, along Alameda, is signed...yet there has never been acknowledgment of the route off 91 or 405.

About 15 years ago they replaced a bunch of signs on the 405.  One for Alameda on the n/b 405 was extra tall as if they were planning to pit a 47 shield on it someday.

Of course they havent yet.

[TheStranger]

is it me..or is 47 between 91 and 103 another example of this specific type of signage inconsistency found with 187 and the Highland Avenue segment of 170?  I have heard (though would need to check out in person) 47 from Anaheim Street north, along Alameda, is signed...yet there has never been acknowledgment of the route off 91 or 405.

About 15 years ago they replaced a bunch of signs on the 405.  One for Alameda on the n/b 405 was extra tall as if they were planning to pit a 47 shield on it someday.

Of course they havent yet.

I've seen those for quite some time!  I know that prior to the early 1980s, 103 didn't exist and 47 was the entire Terminal Island Freeway (the segment of 47 from 103 north along Alameda is actually a part of the original 1964 definition of the route).

Similar "space for a shield" situation exists on 101 at a county road near Thousand Oaks (23 reroute?) and on 101 at the "Monterey Peninsula" exit in Salinas (68 reroute?).

Do you know if 47 is well-signed along Alameda?

[andy3175]

Do you know if 47 is well-signed along Alameda?

Yes, once you're on Alameda, there are reassurance signs for California 47 north. They more or less end at the point where Alameda passes under California 91. As noted up-thread, there's no acknowledgement of California 47 along Alameda from any of the intersecting state highways. I think this may change once the "Port Access Expressway" link is complete between Alameda and Terminal Island. (See http://www.acta.org/projects/projects_planning_SR47.asp for more on this expressway.)

Regards,
Andy

[TheStranger]

Do you know if 47 is well-signed along Alameda?

Yes, once you're on Alameda, there are reassurance signs for California 47 north. They more or less end at the point where Alameda passes under California 91. As noted up-thread, there's no acknowledgement of California 47 along Alameda from any of the intersecting state highways. I think this may change once the "Port Access Expressway" link is complete between Alameda and Terminal Island. (See http://www.acta.org/projects/projects_planning_SR47.asp for more on this expressway.)

Regards,
Andy

The fact that the project specifically is referred to as Route 47 (as opposed to the Richmond Parkway project when that was being worked on by municipal entities) probably speaks to that.

Amazing too that such short and odd routes like Route 170 on Highland are better signed - relatively speaking - than, say, Route 221 on its entirety (where there are no reassurance shields except at the junction with 29) and Route 128 in Yolo County (no reassurance shields westbound past Winters).  Or even Route 18 between the Palmdale area and I-15 (severe lack of reassurance shields there)!

[andy3175]

Amazing too that such short and odd routes like Route 170 on Highland are better signed - relatively speaking - than, say, Route 221 on its entirety (where there are no reassurance shields except at the junction with 29) and Route 128 in Yolo County (no reassurance shields westbound past Winters).  Or even Route 18 between the Palmdale area and I-15 (severe lack of reassurance shields there)!

One challenge is to find a standalone California 74 shield posted anywhere along Ortega Highway within Orange County. There aren't that many around ... or at least there weren't back before the recent construction efforts were underway in the mountains.

Regards,
Andy

[emory]

Growing up very close to this area in the 70's and 80's, I never saw a 170 sign on Highland.  I believe it was the early 90's when they started to put up the signs.  I also never saw the 187 signs on Venice Blvd.  Then LA started putting up the signs and I was very puzzled.  Caltrans never put up such signs.  There is no reference to 170 at the Highland exit off the 101 and there is no 187 sign on the I-10 or I-405 Venice exits.  I don't even believe that the signs are really that helpful.  You can use basically any exit in Hollywood to connect from the 101 to Santa Monica Blvd., the 170 signage can only confuse and in my opinion should be limited to the Hollywood Freeway between I-5 and 101/134.


If you're going to sign a route, sign it completely, including the nearby freeway exit signs.  If you're not going to sign a route, then get rid of it completely and greenout the exit signs.

Well now, thanks to time, the lack of signage on Highland is technically correct. Even the END 170 sign that has sat on the Hollywood Freeway/Ventura Freeway interchange for years is now retroactively accurate. The city just has to yank down that single 170 sign, but that could take a while. There's still a CA 110 south sign on relinquished Arroyo Parkway in Pasadena.

[emory]

Do you know if 47 is well-signed along Alameda?

Yes, once you're on Alameda, there are reassurance signs for California 47 north. They more or less end at the point where Alameda passes under California 91. As noted up-thread, there's no acknowledgement of California 47 along Alameda from any of the intersecting state highways. I think this may change once the "Port Access Expressway" link is complete between Alameda and Terminal Island. (See http://www.acta.org/projects/projects_planning_SR47.asp for more on this expressway.)

Regards,
Andy

I guess I'm confused by the video. Alameda is no longer part of CA 47, which technically ends at the 103 offramp, so is CalTrans going to build a new 47 expressway? Do they plan to actually finish the 47 all the way to I-10?

[andy3175]

(b) The relinquished former portion of Route 170 within the City
of Los Angeles between Route 2 and Route 101 is not a state highway
and is not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For that
relinquished former portion of Route 170, the City of Los Angeles
shall maintain signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route
170.

When did this happen?!

This sort of thing has been happening gradually. A good reference of the changes to the California Streets and Highways Code (which I don't track very carefully on AARoads) is Daniel Faigin's California Highways site (http://www.cahighways.org/). Daniel tracks legislative changes to route numbers very well.

Daniel's entry for Route 170 notes two relatively recent actions:

AB 3047, Chapter 650, 9/21/2004, permits the California Transportation Commission to relinquish to the City of Los Angeles this segment of Route 170 pursuant to the terms of a cooperative agreement between the city and the department, upon a determination by the commission that the relinquishment is in the best interests of the state. Such a relinquishment becomes effective immediately following the recordation by the county recorder of the relinquishment resolution containing the commission's approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment. At that point, the portion of Route 170 relinquished under this subdivision shall cease to be a state highway, and cannot be considered for future adoption. This segment was up for relinquishment in November 2005.

In May 2007, the LA Department of Public Works issued a press release that noted the Route 170 was under city jurisdiction, as well as acknowledging the receipt of $3.2 million from Caltrans for future street and traffic improvements on the formerly State-owned portion of Highland Avenue. The Department of Public Works Bureau of Engineering (BOE) will take the lead in the design and construction management of future street improvements to ease traffic along the relinquished portion of Highland Avenue, stretching northbound from Santa Monica Boulevard to US 101. This will permit the city to make needed improvements. These improvements include adjusting lane widths to City standards for optimized use of the street's surface and synchronization of street signals to relieve traffic congestion along the Highland corridor. Transfer of jurisdiction over the thoroughfare to the city also gives way to the highly anticipated Highland-Franklin Intersection Improvement Project, which will widen streets and add right-turn pockets to the intersection of Highland and Franklin to mitigate traffic in the area for commuters and local residents.

Given all of this activity, I'm surprised SR 170 between SR 2 and US 101 is even listed as "For that relinquished former portion of Route 170, the City of Los Angeles shall maintain signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 170." It seems like it's not really there's much of a route to the north or south to link up to (since the implied shared alignment with US 101 is certainly not cosigned, noting the END 170 sign posted at the Hollywood Split 101-134-170 interchange).

Regards,
Andy

[andy3175]

Do you know if 47 is well-signed along Alameda?

Yes, once you're on Alameda, there are reassurance signs for California 47 north. They more or less end at the point where Alameda passes under California 91. As noted up-thread, there's no acknowledgement of California 47 along Alameda from any of the intersecting state highways. I think this may change once the "Port Access Expressway" link is complete between Alameda and Terminal Island. (See http://www.acta.org/projects/projects_planning_SR47.asp for more on this expressway.)

Regards,
Andy

I guess I'm confused by the video. Alameda is no longer part of CA 47, which technically ends at the 103 offramp, so is CalTrans going to build a new 47 expressway? Do they plan to actually finish the 47 all the way to I-10?

The Alameda Corridor project had many aspects including both road and rail improvements. While rail improvements was the main feature of the project, Alameda Street was improved to "corridor" standards to allow for grade separations with certain east-west streets (mostly in the late 1990s/early 2000s). I've driven the portion of Alameda Street between Anaheim Street and Interstate 105; the improved portion seems to be from Anaheim Street to around SR 91. When I drove it, California 47 was signed along Alameda Street up to SR 91, but it was minimally signed from the Terminal Island Freeway.

Upon researching the Alameda Corridor project, I learned that one missing piece was the link from Terminal Island to the newly upgraded corridor. That piece is the Port Access Expressway, which would create some kind of expressway/direct link from the area around the point where Henry Ford Ave diverges from SR 103/Terminal Island Freeway over to Alameda Street. This expressway would also include a replacement of the Heim Lift Bridge that currently carries SR 47-103 off Terminal Island and onto the mainland (traveling north off the island). As noted on the official site, much of the proposed expressway is unfunded, and I think funding will dictate what, if any improvements will be built to link the Terminal Island Fwy to the Alameda Corridor.

As for the video, I can't say if there's an intent to extend the corridor standards north of SR 91 or not. Alameda St seems to be more like a typical city street once you get north to around I-105, and signage for SR 47 doesn't go that far north.

Finally, I have not been able to determine definitively who exactly maintains Alameda Street itself. The arrangement seems to be local city maintenance perhaps with assistance from the port? I don't know if Caltrans maintains the road or not.

Most of what I've researched and figured out on SR 47 is contained on my webpage https://www.aaroads.com/california/ca-047.html.

Regards,
Andy

[mrsman]

CA-170 along Highland is a wasted designation.  There is no reason for this to be a state highway.  Recycle the miner spades along Highland and use them on another corridor.

Alameda Street OTOH is a truck route.  The state highway designation is designed to be an alternate to the 110 or the 710 to connect the ports to the freeway system.  Yes, it isn't a freeway, but there are enough grade separations to make this a decent alternative to reach either the 405 or the 91.

The state highway system should contain freeways, and major city to city connectors.  Local city streets should not be on the system.

Now some roads, like CA-1 are highway, but also have city portions to them.  To maintain connectivity and proper standards, Caltrans should maintain CA-1 along Lincoln and Sepulveda, just as they do along PCH. 

[TheStranger]

Here's the photo of Route 170's lone southbound sign on Highland that I took a few days ago:

DSC_7247 by csampang, on Flickr

Also, a few blocks down, is this CalTrans-installed gantry:

DSC_7248 by csampang, on Flickr

[emory]

Given all of this activity, I'm surprised SR 170 between SR 2 and US 101 is even listed as "For that relinquished former portion of Route 170, the City of Los Angeles shall maintain signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 170." It seems like it's not really there's much of a route to the north or south to link up to (since the implied shared alignment with US 101 is certainly not cosigned, noting the END 170 sign posted at the Hollywood Split 101-134-170 interchange).

Regards,
Andy

Caltrans just cuts and pastes that phrase a lot when they relinquish fragments. Besides, many of the cities that take over fragments of state highways don't even follow through with that condition.

[pderocco]

I know this is a long dormant thread, but in case anyone is using it as a reference, here are a few missed examples:

CA-162 has a section from US-101 in Longvale to Indian Dick Road in Sherburns. After that, it becomes Forest Route 7 over Mendocino Pass. Eventually, CA-162 reappears at Rd 307 NW of Elk Creek, and it continues all the way across the Central Valley through Oroville, and just past Lake Oroville. The gap is about 27 miles (straight line).

CA-169 follows the Klamath River, where it's possible. There's a short stretch off US-101 in Klamath Glen, and a longer stretch from Johnsons to CA-96 in Weitchpec. The gap is about 12.5 miles.

CA-271 is also used for two disjoint pieces of the old US-101 alignment in NoCal, Cooks Valley to Piercy, and Leggett to Cummings.

Also, check out this fragment of a SoCal Auto Club map (the second one):

http://www.historicalroadmaps.com/CaliforniaPage/DeathValleyPage/

It shows Onion Valley Rd from Independence into the mountains as CA-180, and a proposed road over the mountains. I have found no other reference to this possibility. I wonder if it was ever signed this way.