Route 14U

[cahwyguy]

I'm continuing to work on the highway pages, going through legislative stuff now. In addition to discovering that it is now considered to be running a red light if you run the red on a ramp meter (see http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1094 ), the legislation on Route 14U passed:

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares that when the Antelope Valley Freeway, State Route 14, was constructed through what is now the City of Santa Clarita, the Department of Transportation retained ownership of, and maintenance responsibility for, a portion of the conventional highway that the freeway replaced, Sierra Highway, also known as Route 14U, rather than relinquishing the highway to the County of Los Angeles. The Legislature further finds and declares that the City of Santa Clarita is now interested in assuming ownership of, and maintenance responsibility for, the portion of Sierra Highway approximately between the intersection of Newhall Avenue and the intersection of Friendly Valley Parkway within the city limits of the city, from the Department of Transportation.

SEC. 2. Section 314.1 is added to the Streets and Highways Code, to read:

314.1. (a) The commission may relinquish to the City of Santa Clarita all or any portion of Sierra Highway, also known as Route 14U, located within the city limits of that city, upon terms and conditions the commission finds to be in the best interests of the state, if the department and the city enter into an agreement providing for that relinquishment.

(b) A relinquishment under this section shall become effective immediately after the county recorder's recordation of the relinquishment resolution containing the commission's approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment.

(c) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, both of the following shall occur:
(1) The portion of Route 14U relinquished shall cease to be a state highway.
(2) The portion of Route 14U relinquished shall be ineligible for future adoption under Section 81.

[Max Rockatansky]

Weird that 14U has hung on as long as it has.  Speaking of Unrelinquished routes I did happen to find a couple of CA 180 post markers on Kings Canyon Road between Sunnyside Avenue and Temperance Avenue.  It would seem that the the post markers are located on a part of Kings Canyon Road located in a county island outside of the city limits of Fresno:

180CAa by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

IMG_8028 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Fresno,+CA/@36.7415824,-119.7423896,13z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x80945de1549e4e9d:0x7b12406449a3b811!8m2!3d36.7468422!4d-119.7725868?hl=en

[cahwyguy]

Remember that postmile tool I told you about? If they are a 180U segment, they'll show on that tool.

[Max Rockatansky]

Remember that postmile tool I told you about? If they are a 180U segment, they'll show on that tool.

Just saw that when I was responding to your email.  It would seems they aren't a 180U segment, both searches show segments of the current 180 freeway to the north.  Your 180 stub had that particular segment relinquished back 2011 at least within the Fresno City limits.  It would seem that Fresno County hasn't gotten around to yanking the postmile markers for whatever reason.

[sparker]

Weird that 14U has hung on as long as it has. 

It seems the city of Santa Clarita has, up until this time, had little or no incentive to assume ownership of that portion of Sierra Highway but rather to let Caltrans perform any necessary maintenance on their dime.  The one thing that would likely alter that situation was if some sort of development along that road, considered beneficial by and to Santa Clarita, were to necessitate some change in the alignment or physical configuration of Sierra Highway/14U, in which case the tables would be turned, as Caltrans might show reluctance to program a significant expenditure on a section of highway it clearly deems superfluous, putting the ball squarely in the city's court re ownership of the street. 

Having said that, I'm sure there are board contributors that wouldn't mind acquiring one of the "14U" shields; it certainly would be a unique addition to anyone's collection!

[oscar]

Remember that postmile tool I told you about? If they are a 180U segment, they'll show on that tool.

It also shows at least one other U route, 8U (part of Business I-8) across the river from Yuma AZ.

[Max Rockatansky]

Weird that 14U has hung on as long as it has. 

It seems the city of Santa Clarita has, up until this time, had little or no incentive to assume ownership of that portion of Sierra Highway but rather to let Caltrans perform any necessary maintenance on their dime.  The one thing that would likely alter that situation was if some sort of development along that road, considered beneficial by and to Santa Clarita, were to necessitate some change in the alignment or physical configuration of Sierra Highway/14U, in which case the tables would be turned, as Caltrans might show reluctance to program a significant expenditure on a section of highway it clearly deems superfluous, putting the ball squarely in the city's court re ownership of the street. 

Having said that, I'm sure there are board contributors that wouldn't mind acquiring one of the "14U" shields; it certainly would be a unique addition to anyone's collection!

I might be one considering it certainly has "oddity" value to it.  I wouldn't over pay for something like that though, I have a feeling a lot of collectors.

[Avalanchez71]

Does the U signify that it is unposted?

[Max Rockatansky]

Does the U signify that it is unposted?

Unrelinquished. 

[Mapmikey]

Does the U signify that it is unposted?

14U is posted in at least one place...

https://goo.gl/maps/LK25kgNRVfC2

[Avalanchez71]

Does the U signify that it is unposted?

14U is posted in at least one place...

https://goo.gl/maps/LK25kgNRVfC2

That is uncharacteristic for California.

[kphoger]

14U is posted in at least one place...

https://goo.gl/maps/LK25kgNRVfC2

(Haven't we had this discussion before?)

There's another 14U shield just a little bit to the north from there.
GSV here.

[Max Rockatansky]

14U is posted in at least one place...

https://goo.gl/maps/LK25kgNRVfC2

(Haven't we had this discussion before?)

There's another 14U shield just a little bit to the north from there.
GSV here.

It's popped up a couple times in threads but this really is the legislation that "in theory"  should start pushing 14U towards being turned over.  The absurd part is that 14U is really honestly better Signed than a lot of SoCal State Highways. 

[sparker]

The absurd part is that 14U is really honestly better Signed than a lot of SoCal State Highways. 

Ain't that the truth!!!!! Applies to Northern California as well.

[TheStranger]

The absurd part is that 14U is really honestly better Signed than a lot of SoCal State Highways. 

Ain't that the truth!!!!! Applies to Northern California as well.

This might not be true anymore in 2014, but throughout the 2000s when I either biked along or drive Route 128 west of Winters, there was pretty much almost no shield signage whatsoever.  Same deal I recall a few years back for Route 18 between Route 138 in Palmdale and US 395.

And then meanwhile...Route 14U.  LOL

[sparker]

The absurd part is that 14U is really honestly better Signed than a lot of SoCal State Highways. 

Ain't that the truth!!!!! Applies to Northern California as well.

This might not be true anymore in 2014, but throughout the 2000s when I either biked along or drive Route 128 west of Winters, there was pretty much almost no shield signage whatsoever.  Same deal I recall a few years back for Route 18 between Route 138 in Palmdale and US 395.

And then meanwhile...Route 14U.  LOL

Try CA 238 from Hayward south to I-680:  sparse signage (a few mileposts, though), even at the CA 84 junction which, of course, "jogs" for a few blocks over 238.  CA 84 itself is signed -- but you have to keep your eyes out for roadside SGS's that indicate the various twists and turns that route takes across Fremont (District 4 seems to have forgotten how to deploy shields!).  I guess they can't shed surface streets fast enough; CA 185 looks like it may be history soon!   

[Max Rockatansky]

The absurd part is that 14U is really honestly better Signed than a lot of SoCal State Highways. 

Ain't that the truth!!!!! Applies to Northern California as well.

This might not be true anymore in 2014, but throughout the 2000s when I either biked along or drive Route 128 west of Winters, there was pretty much almost no shield signage whatsoever.  Same deal I recall a few years back for Route 18 between Route 138 in Palmdale and US 395.

And then meanwhile...Route 14U.  LOL

Try CA 238 from Hayward south to I-680:  sparse signage (a few mileposts, though), even at the CA 84 junction which, of course, "jogs" for a few blocks over 238.  CA 84 itself is signed -- but you have to keep your eyes out for roadside SGS's that indicate the various twists and turns that route takes across Fremont (District 4 seems to have forgotten how to deploy shields!).  I guess they can't shed surface streets fast enough; CA 185 looks like it may be history soon!

Worse....try CA 130, good luck finding a shield off freeway in San Jose.

[TheStranger]

The absurd part is that 14U is really honestly better Signed than a lot of SoCal State Highways. 

Ain't that the truth!!!!! Applies to Northern California as well.

This might not be true anymore in 2014, but throughout the 2000s when I either biked along or drive Route 128 west of Winters, there was pretty much almost no shield signage whatsoever.  Same deal I recall a few years back for Route 18 between Route 138 in Palmdale and US 395.

And then meanwhile...Route 14U.  LOL

Try CA 238 from Hayward south to I-680:  sparse signage (a few mileposts, though), even at the CA 84 junction which, of course, "jogs" for a few blocks over 238.  CA 84 itself is signed -- but you have to keep your eyes out for roadside SGS's that indicate the various twists and turns that route takes across Fremont (District 4 seems to have forgotten how to deploy shields!).  I guess they can't shed surface streets fast enough; CA 185 looks like it may be history soon!

Worse....try CA 130, good luck finding a shield off freeway in San Jose.

Hasn't 130 been relinquished within the city limits?

SAMSUNG-SM-J327A

[sparker]

The absurd part is that 14U is really honestly better Signed than a lot of SoCal State Highways. 

Ain't that the truth!!!!! Applies to Northern California as well.

This might not be true anymore in 2014, but throughout the 2000s when I either biked along or drive Route 128 west of Winters, there was pretty much almost no shield signage whatsoever.  Same deal I recall a few years back for Route 18 between Route 138 in Palmdale and US 395.

And then meanwhile...Route 14U.  LOL

Try CA 238 from Hayward south to I-680:  sparse signage (a few mileposts, though), even at the CA 84 junction which, of course, "jogs" for a few blocks over 238.  CA 84 itself is signed -- but you have to keep your eyes out for roadside SGS's that indicate the various twists and turns that route takes across Fremont (District 4 seems to have forgotten how to deploy shields!).  I guess they can't shed surface streets fast enough; CA 185 looks like it may be history soon!

Worse....try CA 130, good luck finding a shield off freeway in San Jose.

Hasn't 130 been relinquished within the city limits?

SAMSUNG-SM-J327A

Yes -- and San Jose's de facto policy is to discourage through traffic on city streets -- even arterials -- so the chance of seeing CA 130 (or even "TO 130") signage of any sort along Alum Rock is slim & none.   

[TheStranger]

The absurd part is that 14U is really honestly better Signed than a lot of SoCal State Highways. 

Ain't that the truth!!!!! Applies to Northern California as well.

This might not be true anymore in 2014, but throughout the 2000s when I either biked along or drive Route 128 west of Winters, there was pretty much almost no shield signage whatsoever.  Same deal I recall a few years back for Route 18 between Route 138 in Palmdale and US 395.

And then meanwhile...Route 14U.  LOL

Try CA 238 from Hayward south to I-680:  sparse signage (a few mileposts, though), even at the CA 84 junction which, of course, "jogs" for a few blocks over 238.  CA 84 itself is signed -- but you have to keep your eyes out for roadside SGS's that indicate the various twists and turns that route takes across Fremont (District 4 seems to have forgotten how to deploy shields!).  I guess they can't shed surface streets fast enough; CA 185 looks like it may be history soon!

Worse....try CA 130, good luck finding a shield off freeway in San Jose.

Hasn't 130 been relinquished within the city limits?

SAMSUNG-SM-J327A

Yes -- and San Jose's de facto policy is to discourage through traffic on city streets -- even arterials -- so the chance of seeing CA 130 (or even "TO 130") signage of any sort along Alum Rock is slim & none.

Come to think of it, the only surface street state route left in SJ is...Route 82 north of 880.

SAMSUNG-SM-J327A

[Max Rockatansky]

The absurd part is that 14U is really honestly better Signed than a lot of SoCal State Highways. 

Ain't that the truth!!!!! Applies to Northern California as well.

This might not be true anymore in 2014, but throughout the 2000s when I either biked along or drive Route 128 west of Winters, there was pretty much almost no shield signage whatsoever.  Same deal I recall a few years back for Route 18 between Route 138 in Palmdale and US 395.

And then meanwhile...Route 14U.  LOL

Try CA 238 from Hayward south to I-680:  sparse signage (a few mileposts, though), even at the CA 84 junction which, of course, "jogs" for a few blocks over 238.  CA 84 itself is signed -- but you have to keep your eyes out for roadside SGS's that indicate the various twists and turns that route takes across Fremont (District 4 seems to have forgotten how to deploy shields!).  I guess they can't shed surface streets fast enough; CA 185 looks like it may be history soon!

Worse....try CA 130, good luck finding a shield off freeway in San Jose.

Hasn't 130 been relinquished within the city limits?

SAMSUNG-SM-J327A

Yes -- and San Jose's de facto policy is to discourage through traffic on city streets -- even arterials -- so the chance of seeing CA 130 (or even "TO 130") signage of any sort along Alum Rock is slim & none.

Come to think of it, the only surface street state route left in SJ is...Route 82 north of 880.

SAMSUNG-SM-J327A

Given that whole "route discourage" thing on surface streets in San Jose it makes me wonder if that's why my construction 130 did have any bolt wholes in the vinyl when I acquired it last year:

IMG_1217 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

Incidentally it makes you wonder....how does District 4 have the best looking construction shields in the state but likely the worst if not one of the worst regular signage standards in all of Caltrans?

[oscar]

Yes -- and San Jose's de facto policy is to discourage through traffic on city streets -- even arterials -- so the chance of seeing CA 130 (or even "TO 130") signage of any sort along Alum Rock is slim & none.

GMSV shows no CA 130 route markers until the turnoff to Mt. Hamilton Rd., which is well within the part of the route not relinquished to San Jose. And not even "TO CA 130" markers on the freeways, to point travelers to Mt. Hamilton.

[Max Rockatansky]

Yes -- and San Jose's de facto policy is to discourage through traffic on city streets -- even arterials -- so the chance of seeing CA 130 (or even "TO 130") signage of any sort along Alum Rock is slim & none.

GMSV shows no CA 130 route markers until the turnoff to Mt. Hamilton Rd., which is well within the part of the route not relinquished to San Jose. And not even "TO CA 130" markers on the freeways, to point travelers to Mt. Hamilton.

Its even worse westbound from Mount Hamilton.  I'm fairly certain the only "official" shield was at the Lick Observatory.  Granted there are several county made shields east of Lick, but that isn't part of CA 130 on the books.

[cahwyguy]

CA 185 looks like it may be history soon!   

If you look at my changes post, the relinquishment bill for 185 passed.

AB 333 (Quirk) State Highway Route 185: relinquishment: County of Alameda.
Existing law authorizes the commission to relinquish all or a portion of Route 185 in the City of Hayward to the city, as specified.
This bill would additionally authorize the commission to relinquish all or a portion of Route 185 in the unincorporated area of the County of Alameda to that county, as specified.
09/28/17 Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 339, Statutes of 2017.


Then, if you look at what I captured from the CTC minutes, they've already relinquished it:

04-Ala-185-PM 0.4/0.9 Right of way on Route 185 from "˜A' Street to the Hayward City Limits at Rose Street, in the city of Hayward.
04-Ala-238-PM 7.8/9.3 Right of way on Route 238 from the Hayward City Limits to Industrial Parkway, in the city of Hayward.

THis is what you can find if you look at the changes I post :-)

[sparker]

Interesting that the relinquishment of CA 185 only applies to the city of Hayward and unincorporated Alameda County.  I'll bet that San Leandro and Oakland are as of yet reluctant to take over maintenance of the 185 alignment -- also, unsigned CA 112 (sporadically signed as CA 61) terminates at CA 185 in downtown San Leandro, and Caltrans seems to prefer relinquishing everything within a specific city (except for massive ones such as L.A.!) in one fell swoop.  Chances are San Leandro's position re relinquishment applies to both those surface highways within their jurisdiction (along with the small portion of actual CA 61 inside the city limits).  And Oakland probably just doesn't want the expense of maintaining East 14th Street (185).