Highway 1 Costs and Shields

[coatimundi]

I had a couple of questions in the now-banned post that I'm actually still curious about, and wanted to see if anyone had any answers or thoughts.

Someone (not a roadgeek) told me, years ago, that Highway 1 was the most expensive highway to maintain in the country on a per mile basis. Considering the state of the highway on this rainy day during this rainiest of winters, with its multiple closures due to slides, I can see where that idea would come from. The fact is that the section south of me, around the Monterey/SLO County line, does not need to be connected. The relatively small population could be served by roads that cut through easier terrain to reach the coast while the most problematic sections between those minor population centers could be closed. But closing Highway 1 would severely disrupt economic activity in a number of communities on and around the coast in the two counties. So the Caltrans burden there is offset to an extent by the various taxes that the tourism brings in.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the state gets a bit of money from all the stickers, t-shirts and other schwag with the iconic Highway 1 shield. If they're not, then that seems silly to me since it should be trademarked, just as the interstate shields are.

[NE2]

Trademarking something whose primary purpose is navigation would be silly. The reason the Interstate shield is trademarked is to prevent the posting of misleading signs.

[Quillz]

The miner's spade isn't trademarked and shouldn't be, IMO. As NE2 posted, the purpose of trademarking the interstate shield wasn't to make money from it, but to ensure that they are basically used for their sole purpose of providing almost brand-name like recognition of interstate highways.

[coatimundi]

It seems like the California shield could be trademarked for the same reasons. Nothing to stop its misuse. Highway 1 Brewing could put up a big spade with an arrow to try to get tourists to turn in.

[Max Rockatansky]

I doubt many if any state highway shields are trademarked at all.  In my home state in Michigan there is a pretty big market for roads like M1, M102, and M22 just to name a few.  A lot of local businesses and sticker makers seem to make some pretty good change off the tourism buck in regards to selling goods with route numbers.  But in that regard California in general seems to have a ton of "memorable" highways that seem to be desirable in general for something touristy or in the souvenir variety.  The tricky thing with the spade in regards to counterfeit signage is that it is a non-standard shield.  I only know of a couple sign makers who actually produce California spades and I would highly doubt many people would go out of their way to post a replica in the field.

[nexus73]

Trademarking something whose primary purpose is navigation would be silly. The reason the Interstate shield is trademarked is to prevent the posting of misleading signs.

So how yuuge is that trademark protection?  Yuuge enough to cover this?

https://chargedevs.com/newswire/washington-state-dot-breaks-ground-west-coast-electric-highway/

We have these logos in Oregon.

Rick

[coatimundi]

I only know of a couple sign makers who actually produce California spades and I would highly doubt many people would go out of their way to post a replica in the field.

Not a replica sign as such, but a spade on a business sign. I know you'll think "But if it doesn't look like a real sign, then people won't follow it," but realize that a good portion of people driving this highway are from out of state and often from out of the country. Our insistence on staying away from standardized road signs likely leaves international tourists with an open mind about what is a true, informational sign and what is just "Fill Dirt Wanted".

[J N Winkler]

Someone (not a roadgeek) told me, years ago, that Highway 1 was the most expensive highway to maintain in the country on a per mile basis. Considering the state of the highway on this rainy day during this rainiest of winters, with its multiple closures due to slides, I can see where that idea would come from.

This claim is plausible, though I am not sure how to go about verifying it--the scope is not specified exactly (all of SR 1 or only part of it?  Are relinquished segments or former lengths of Alternate US 101 taken into account?  Etc.) and I am not sure what the runners-up would be.

SR 1 north of San Luis Obispo is a corniche road for the most part, and has had extended closures because of landslides not just at Devil's Slide, but also Big Sur, and has also claimed the life of at least one Caltrans maintenance worker.  In Southern California it is a beach boulevard that is also slide-prone and has given rise to a running debate over whether Caltrans or adjacent landowners should assume the running cost of dewatering the bluffs to prevent slides.

[Max Rockatansky]

I only know of a couple sign makers who actually produce California spades and I would highly doubt many people would go out of their way to post a replica in the field.

Not a replica sign as such, but a spade on a business sign. I know you'll think "But if it doesn't look like a real sign, then people won't follow it," but realize that a good portion of people driving this highway are from out of state and often from out of the country. Our insistence on staying away from standardized road signs likely leaves international tourists with an open mind about what is a true, informational sign and what is just "Fill Dirt Wanted".

So basically stuff like this?

Market 25:



Or the nuttiness with Santa Cruz County insisting on signing CA 130 east of where it actually ends?



In the particular instance of the Market 25 they did a pretty good job replicating the actual design of the spade IMO.  The real sad part is that I can't really dispute what you are saying...especially after all that crazy talk about people trying to detour via GPS directions off of I-80.  Hell I've heard enough horror stories about tourists using things like Black Eagle Mine Road in passenger cars to pretty much believe anything.

[Quillz]

Completely off-topic, but cool to see a black-on-white spade. (CA-130, in this case).

[Max Rockatansky]

Completely off-topic, but cool to see a black-on-white spade. (CA-130, in this case).

Yeah I'm not sure what the hell Santa Clara County is trying to pull.  Those signs literally go from Mount Hamilton all the way to the county line.  Pretty clear that they want CA 130 to go across the Diablos regardless of what anyone else thinks. 

[nexus73]

I only know of a couple sign makers who actually produce California spades and I would highly doubt many people would go out of their way to post a replica in the field.

Not a replica sign as such, but a spade on a business sign. I know you'll think "But if it doesn't look like a real sign, then people won't follow it," but realize that a good portion of people driving this highway are from out of state and often from out of the country. Our insistence on staying away from standardized road signs likely leaves international tourists with an open mind about what is a true, informational sign and what is just "Fill Dirt Wanted".

So basically stuff like this?

Market 25:



Or the nuttiness with Santa Cruz County insisting on signing CA 130 east of where it actually ends?



In the particular instance of the Market 25 they did a pretty good job replicating the actual design of the spade IMO.  The real sad part is that I can't really dispute what you are saying...especially after all that crazy talk about people trying to detour via GPS directions off of I-80.  Hell I've heard enough horror stories about tourists using things like Black Eagle Mine Road in passenger cars to pretty much believe anything.

I have never seen such a state route sign as the 130 in the pix.  Got any idea on how this particular design originated?

Rick

[Quillz]

The miner's spade was black-on-white until 1964, so someone probably just forgot to add color to the basic design. I've seen them elsewhere, and some of the national parks have white-on-brown spades.

[Max Rockatansky]

I only know of a couple sign makers who actually produce California spades and I would highly doubt many people would go out of their way to post a replica in the field.

Not a replica sign as such, but a spade on a business sign. I know you'll think "But if it doesn't look like a real sign, then people won't follow it," but realize that a good portion of people driving this highway are from out of state and often from out of the country. Our insistence on staying away from standardized road signs likely leaves international tourists with an open mind about what is a true, informational sign and what is just "Fill Dirt Wanted".

So basically stuff like this?

Market 25:



Or the nuttiness with Santa Cruz County insisting on signing CA 130 east of where it actually ends?



In the particular instance of the Market 25 they did a pretty good job replicating the actual design of the spade IMO.  The real sad part is that I can't really dispute what you are saying...especially after all that crazy talk about people trying to detour via GPS directions off of I-80.  Hell I've heard enough horror stories about tourists using things like Black Eagle Mine Road in passenger cars to pretty much believe anything.

I have never seen such a state route sign as the 130 in the pix.  Got any idea on how this particular design originated?

Rick

The legislatively defined CA 130 ends at Mount Hamilton at the Lick Observatory.  East of the Lick Observatory the road continues on San Antonio Valley Road and Del Puerto Canyon Road to the Stanislaus County Line.  For whatever reason Santa Clara County posted their own version of CA 130 signs.  The part that Santa Clara County is signing isn't part of the state highway system, I did a thread on the topic last month:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19345.0

Basically LRN 115 showed an implied route to CA 33 that would have followed basically the alignment described above but it was never adopted:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239528~5511852:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1963?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=29&trs=86

Cahighways has a stub on the Santa Clara 130s also:

http://www.cahighways.org/129-136.html

The miner's spade was black-on-white until 1964, so someone probably just forgot to add color to the basic design. I've seen them elsewhere, and some of the national parks have white-on-brown spades.

Actually that 130 is a green background with white spade.  What is really even more strange is that most of the Santa Clara County sourced signs have green spades on a green background.  The signs are also fairly recent, they don't have much wear and tear on them.  Nobody is really even one hundred certain it was even someone from the county who posted those 130s.  It very well could just be someone who had some signs done up and posted them.  Apparently someone near Monterey actually did something like that with a CA 68 alignment and posted a "historic US 68" sign by mistake.

http://www.cahighways.org/065-072.html

[NE2]

The legislatively defined CA 130 ends at Mount Hamilton at the Lick Observatory.

What...
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=430.&lawCode=SHC
"Route 130 is from the eastern city limit of the City of San Jose near Manning Avenue to Route 33 near Patterson via the vicinity of Mount Hamilton."
It's definitely not state maintained east of Mount Hamilton, but that is the unbuilt legislative alignment.

[Max Rockatansky]

The legislatively defined CA 130 ends at Mount Hamilton at the Lick Observatory.

What...
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=430.&lawCode=SHC
"Route 130 is from the eastern city limit of the City of San Jose near Manning Avenue to Route 33 near Patterson via the vicinity of Mount Hamilton."
It's definitely not state maintained east of Mount Hamilton, but that is the unbuilt legislative alignment.

Exactly, hence my theory that it might not be some rogue county DOT signage but rather someone who has an issue that Caltrans never built an official alignment that reached 33.  Whatever the answer is it sure as hell is bizarre as all hell. 

[coatimundi]

The legislatively defined CA 130 ends at Mount Hamilton at the Lick Observatory.

What...
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=430.&lawCode=SHC
"Route 130 is from the eastern city limit of the City of San Jose near Manning Avenue to Route 33 near Patterson via the vicinity of Mount Hamilton."
It's definitely not state maintained east of Mount Hamilton, but that is the unbuilt legislative alignment.

Exactly, hence my theory that it might not be some rogue county DOT signage but rather someone who has an issue that Caltrans never built an official alignment that reached 33.  Whatever the answer is it sure as hell is bizarre as all hell.

My theory on this is that Santa Clara County took the "shall maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 130" for San Jose a little too literally. I mean, no one's getting all the way up there and saying "Oh, shit, I can't find 130. How do I get back down?" I look at some other stuff they're doing, and just have the inclination that Santa Clara County may have too much roads money for their own good. Hopefully they're socking it away.

[Max Rockatansky]

The legislatively defined CA 130 ends at Mount Hamilton at the Lick Observatory.

What...
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=430.&lawCode=SHC
"Route 130 is from the eastern city limit of the City of San Jose near Manning Avenue to Route 33 near Patterson via the vicinity of Mount Hamilton."
It's definitely not state maintained east of Mount Hamilton, but that is the unbuilt legislative alignment.

Exactly, hence my theory that it might not be some rogue county DOT signage but rather someone who has an issue that Caltrans never built an official alignment that reached 33.  Whatever the answer is it sure as hell is bizarre as all hell.

My theory on this is that Santa Clara County took the "shall maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 130" for San Jose a little too literally. I mean, no one's getting all the way up there and saying "Oh, shit, I can't find 130. How do I get back down?" I look at some other stuff they're doing, and just have the inclination that Santa Clara County may have too much roads money for their own good. Hopefully they're socking it away.

And if that is the case it makes the situation in San Jose with 130 even stranger.  According to all the relinquishment jargon the city is supposed to maintain continuation signage to Mount Hamilton Road, yet doesn't.  The only real 130 signs I've ever seen were on Mount Hamilton Road which is still under Caltrans maintenance. 

Maybe one of us should order some additional cheapo 130 signs and take to the streets of San Jose and roads of Stanislaus County to finish what Caltrans never could with a completed route.  I can probably get a bunch of 18x12 signs on the cheap with 130 spades on them for $20 dollars a pop. 

[jrouse]

The legislatively defined CA 130 ends at Mount Hamilton at the Lick Observatory.

What...
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=430.&lawCode=SHC
"Route 130 is from the eastern city limit of the City of San Jose near Manning Avenue to Route 33 near Patterson via the vicinity of Mount Hamilton."
It's definitely not state maintained east of Mount Hamilton, but that is the unbuilt legislative alignment.

Exactly, hence my theory that it might not be some rogue county DOT signage but rather someone who has an issue that Caltrans never built an official alignment that reached 33.  Whatever the answer is it sure as hell is bizarre as all hell.

My theory on this is that Santa Clara County took the "shall maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 130" for San Jose a little too literally. I mean, no one's getting all the way up there and saying "Oh, shit, I can't find 130. How do I get back down?" I look at some other stuff they're doing, and just have the inclination that Santa Clara County may have too much roads money for their own good. Hopefully they're socking it away.

The Route 130 signs on San Antonio Valley Road were there long before the relinquishment of Alum Rock Avenue.


iPhone

[Max Rockatansky]

The legislatively defined CA 130 ends at Mount Hamilton at the Lick Observatory.

What...
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=430.&lawCode=SHC
"Route 130 is from the eastern city limit of the City of San Jose near Manning Avenue to Route 33 near Patterson via the vicinity of Mount Hamilton."
It's definitely not state maintained east of Mount Hamilton, but that is the unbuilt legislative alignment.

Exactly, hence my theory that it might not be some rogue county DOT signage but rather someone who has an issue that Caltrans never built an official alignment that reached 33.  Whatever the answer is it sure as hell is bizarre as all hell.

My theory on this is that Santa Clara County took the "shall maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 130" for San Jose a little too literally. I mean, no one's getting all the way up there and saying "Oh, shit, I can't find 130. How do I get back down?" I look at some other stuff they're doing, and just have the inclination that Santa Clara County may have too much roads money for their own good. Hopefully they're socking it away.

The Route 130 signs on San Antonio Valley Road were there long before the relinquishment of Alum Rock Avenue.


iPhone

Any idea when they were first observed out there on San Antonio Valley?  I've known about them for about a good four-five years myself.