AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33904.0
Corrected several already and appreciate your patience as we work through the rest.

Author Topic: CA 216 and CA 201  (Read 2758 times)

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 24920
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 09:57:10 PM
    • Gribblenation
CA 216 and CA 201
« on: October 16, 2017, 09:51:01 PM »

Had some spare time this afternoon, so I went for a double route clinch with CA 216 and CA 201.  Just loaded my photos of 216 eastbound and 201 westbound:

CA 216

https://flic.kr/s/aHskpS2bXs


CA 201

https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/67sQuU


I don't recall seeing much route alignment shifts even back in the LRN days on either of these routes.  I'll get my rough-cut notes together tonight and get everything on a road blog probably by Wednesday at the latest.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 24920
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 09:57:10 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 216 and CA 201
« Reply #1 on: October 16, 2017, 10:24:48 PM »

Drafted up my historical/alignment notes for my road blog.  Anyone happen to known when CA 216 was shifted onto Lovers Lane in Visalia?


CA 216 Notes

-  CA 216 was originally LRN 133 from Visalia to Woodlake and LRN 131 from Woodlake to Lemon Cove.  Both LRNs were adopted back in 1933.

-  LRN 133 once entered Visalia and terminated at LRN 132 (modern CA 63) at Court Street.  LRN 133 extended west from Lover's Lane on Houston Avenue and Northeast 3rd Avenue to meet LRN 132.  The alignment can be seen on the 1935 Division of Highways Map of Tulare County:

https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~247377~5515399:Tulare-County-?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:california%2Bdivision%2Bof%2Bhighways;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=78&trs=163

-  LRN 133 appears to have approached the north bank of the St. Johns River via Mills Drive.  There appears to have been a river crossing roughly at the location of modern Culter Park.

-  CA 216 was created out of the above mentioned LRNs by 1964 but does not appear to have been signed.

https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239525~5511850:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1964?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=27&trs=86

-  CA 216 appears to have been signed by 1969.

https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239513~5511842:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1969?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=19&trs=86

-  The original alignment of LRN 133/CA 216 into Visalia along Houston Avenue to LRN 132/CA 63 is still present in 1990.  I'm unsure of when CA 216 was shifted onto Lovers Lane but is would have been before 2010 based off the legislative notes from CAhighways.org.

1990 State Highway Map

https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239483~5511824:State-Highway-Map,-1990-?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=1&trs=86

CA 216 on CAhighways

http://www.cahighways.org/209-216.html#216



CA 201 Notes

-  What became CA 201 was originally LRN 131 west of Woodlake and SSR 65.  The routing of modern CA 201 is essentially nearly the same as LRN 131 was which can be seen on the 1935 Tulare County Divisions of Highways Map:

https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~247377~5515399:Tulare-County-?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:california%2Bdivision%2Bof%2Bhighways;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=78&trs=163

-  Much like CA 216, CA 201 was created in 1964 but wasn't apparently signed.

https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239525~5511850:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1964?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=27&trs=86

-  Again like CA 216, CA 201 appears to have been signed by 1969.

https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239513~5511842:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1969?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=19&trs=86
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 24920
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 09:57:10 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 216 and CA 201
« Reply #2 on: October 17, 2017, 11:02:36 PM »

Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 24920
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 09:57:10 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 216 and CA 201
« Reply #3 on: October 17, 2017, 11:27:20 PM »

Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8487
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 30, 2023, 05:42:25 PM
Re: CA 216 and CA 201
« Reply #4 on: October 20, 2017, 04:30:08 AM »

The CA 216 Road Blog is up:

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/10/california-state-route-216.html

A missing 216 shield (the one that must have been under the "END" sign at 198) in Tulare County -- where that friend of a college friend pilfered dozens of old CA 69 signs in the late '60's.  Maybe we're dealing with a multi-generational tradition here -- there might be a room full of shields somewhere in Strathmore or Lindsay (where the original band of thieves called home).  In any case, glad someone's out there clinching highways and taking photos.  If I weren't so busy (being a partner in a business seems to be a 24/7 process these days!) I'd be out there doing something similar in my supposed "retirement" (looks like I'll retire when I'm dead!).  Carry on!
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 24920
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 09:57:10 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 216 and CA 201
« Reply #5 on: October 20, 2017, 09:37:00 AM »

The CA 216 Road Blog is up:

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/10/california-state-route-216.html

A missing 216 shield (the one that must have been under the "END" sign at 198) in Tulare County -- where that friend of a college friend pilfered dozens of old CA 69 signs in the late '60's.  Maybe we're dealing with a multi-generational tradition here -- there might be a room full of shields somewhere in Strathmore or Lindsay (where the original band of thieves called home).  In any case, glad someone's out there clinching highways and taking photos.  If I weren't so busy (being a partner in a business seems to be a 24/7 process these days!) I'd be out there doing something similar in my supposed "retirement" (looks like I'll retire when I'm dead!).  Carry on!

It seems that the 216 shield disappeared some time between 2007 and 2013:

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.3953232,-119.0220257,3a,75y,151.62h,92.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1saad6jdPqfGMam0q7cdN1qw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.3953374,-119.0220125,3a,75y,151.62h,92.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stscv2Zsn83Sz4jbxljctxg!2e0!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en

It makes me wonder if the same person got the END placard over at the eastern terminus of 198 that was just replaced this year?   An interesting observation I made about sign theft in the area is that Caltrans seems to be putting CA 63 mounted ten feet or above in places in downtown Visalia.  The Division of Highways was just asking for it renumbering 65 to something like 69 out in the boondocks like that.
Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 4018
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: Today at 10:51:24 PM
Re: CA 216 and CA 201
« Reply #6 on: October 22, 2017, 08:13:48 AM »

The CA 216 Road Blog is up:

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/10/california-state-route-216.html

A missing 216 shield (the one that must have been under the "END" sign at 198) in Tulare County -- where that friend of a college friend pilfered dozens of old CA 69 signs in the late '60's.  Maybe we're dealing with a multi-generational tradition here -- there might be a room full of shields somewhere in Strathmore or Lindsay (where the original band of thieves called home).  In any case, glad someone's out there clinching highways and taking photos.  If I weren't so busy (being a partner in a business seems to be a 24/7 process these days!) I'd be out there doing something similar in my supposed "retirement" (looks like I'll retire when I'm dead!).  Carry on!

It seems that the 216 shield disappeared some time between 2007 and 2013:

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.3953232,-119.0220257,3a,75y,151.62h,92.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1saad6jdPqfGMam0q7cdN1qw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.3953374,-119.0220125,3a,75y,151.62h,92.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stscv2Zsn83Sz4jbxljctxg!2e0!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en

It makes me wonder if the same person got the END placard over at the eastern terminus of 198 that was just replaced this year?   An interesting observation I made about sign theft in the area is that Caltrans seems to be putting CA 63 mounted ten feet or above in places in downtown Visalia.  The Division of Highways was just asking for it renumbering 65 to something like 69 out in the boondocks like that.

That's right.  There are certain numbers that just shouldn't be used like 69, 666, 420, ...
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 24920
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 09:57:10 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 216 and CA 201
« Reply #7 on: October 22, 2017, 10:02:05 AM »

The CA 216 Road Blog is up:

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/10/california-state-route-216.html

A missing 216 shield (the one that must have been under the "END" sign at 198) in Tulare County -- where that friend of a college friend pilfered dozens of old CA 69 signs in the late '60's.  Maybe we're dealing with a multi-generational tradition here -- there might be a room full of shields somewhere in Strathmore or Lindsay (where the original band of thieves called home).  In any case, glad someone's out there clinching highways and taking photos.  If I weren't so busy (being a partner in a business seems to be a 24/7 process these days!) I'd be out there doing something similar in my supposed "retirement" (looks like I'll retire when I'm dead!).  Carry on!

It seems that the 216 shield disappeared some time between 2007 and 2013:

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.3953232,-119.0220257,3a,75y,151.62h,92.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1saad6jdPqfGMam0q7cdN1qw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.3953374,-119.0220125,3a,75y,151.62h,92.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stscv2Zsn83Sz4jbxljctxg!2e0!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en

It makes me wonder if the same person got the END placard over at the eastern terminus of 198 that was just replaced this year?   An interesting observation I made about sign theft in the area is that Caltrans seems to be putting CA 63 mounted ten feet or above in places in downtown Visalia.  The Division of Highways was just asking for it renumbering 65 to something like 69 out in the boondocks like that.

That's right.  There are certain numbers that just shouldn't be used like 69, 666, 420, ...

The problem with those the numbers is that they get stolen in rural areas.  Case and point; almost no AZ 69 shields are stolen because it is the main connector road from I-17.  US 666 on the other hand was in an area that has no population and had signs stolen all the time.  Even something like I-69 doesn't get a ton of theft given the nature of how much traffic it has.  Using 69 on the modern CA 245 corridor was a huge mistake, north of Woodlake to 180 you would be hard pressed to encounter another vehicle traveling the same direction. 
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8487
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 30, 2023, 05:42:25 PM
Re: CA 216 and CA 201
« Reply #8 on: October 23, 2017, 05:42:15 AM »

The problem with those the numbers is that they get stolen in rural areas.  Case and point; almost no AZ 69 shields are stolen because it is the main connector road from I-17.  US 666 on the other hand was in an area that has no population and had signs stolen all the time.  Even something like I-69 doesn't get a ton of theft given the nature of how much traffic it has.  Using 69 on the modern CA 245 corridor was a huge mistake, north of Woodlake to 180 you would be hard pressed to encounter another vehicle traveling the same direction. 

Back in the day it was likely the Division of Highways either had little idea about the significance of the number "69", or, if the issue was brought up either at the district or statewide level, presumed that since there weren't any universities that close to the route (save Fresno State), the "pool" of potential sign thieves doing it strictly for amusement was  lessened; obviously, they didn't consider locals who were attending college elsewhere -- or that, in the turbulent late '60's, college students had a lot more on their minds than stealing sexually referenced signage (most of us did fit that description).  Since the CA 69 signage lasted about five years before the route was redesignated, it's likely the cost of replacement signs was the deciding factor regarding the change -- the process of which requires legislative rather than simple administrative action. 

I've always wondered -- since US 69 and later I-69 traverses considerable rural mileage, if there's a problem with missing signage on those routes (as well as any state with a route 69); it would be interesting to do at least an anecdotal study (I don't know whether I'd go the the effort to do full regression analysis on such a seemingly trivial matter!) about this.  Also -- I've wondered if the folks along the path of the planned I-69 (particularly those in the so-called "Bible Belt", through which much of the corridor travels), have lodged any concerns or objections to that particular number.  Since US 69 was established prior to widespread discussion of such things (at least in public discourse), the commission of that route was likely without controversy. 

 
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 24920
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 09:57:10 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 216 and CA 201
« Reply #9 on: October 23, 2017, 07:28:44 AM »

The problem with those the numbers is that they get stolen in rural areas.  Case and point; almost no AZ 69 shields are stolen because it is the main connector road from I-17.  US 666 on the other hand was in an area that has no population and had signs stolen all the time.  Even something like I-69 doesn't get a ton of theft given the nature of how much traffic it has.  Using 69 on the modern CA 245 corridor was a huge mistake, north of Woodlake to 180 you would be hard pressed to encounter another vehicle traveling the same direction. 

Back in the day it was likely the Division of Highways either had little idea about the significance of the number "69", or, if the issue was brought up either at the district or statewide level, presumed that since there weren't any universities that close to the route (save Fresno State), the "pool" of potential sign thieves doing it strictly for amusement was  lessened; obviously, they didn't consider locals who were attending college elsewhere -- or that, in the turbulent late '60's, college students had a lot more on their minds than stealing sexually referenced signage (most of us did fit that description).  Since the CA 69 signage lasted about five years before the route was redesignated, it's likely the cost of replacement signs was the deciding factor regarding the change -- the process of which requires legislative rather than simple administrative action. 

I've always wondered -- since US 69 and later I-69 traverses considerable rural mileage, if there's a problem with missing signage on those routes (as well as any state with a route 69); it would be interesting to do at least an anecdotal study (I don't know whether I'd go the the effort to do full regression analysis on such a seemingly trivial matter!) about this.  Also -- I've wondered if the folks along the path of the planned I-69 (particularly those in the so-called "Bible Belt", through which much of the corridor travels), have lodged any concerns or objections to that particular number.  Since US 69 was established prior to widespread discussion of such things (at least in public discourse), the commission of that route was likely without controversy.

Incidentally I went to high school off an exit of I-69 north of Lansing well within the era where the number meant something significant.  I don't recall anyone taking an I-69 shield but there was plenty of US 27s in local garages that were obviously swiped from the boons north of the city.  My theory always was that it was far more difficult to take an Interstate shield and remain "unseen" while in the act which acted as a natural deterrent.  Stolen or not any highway with "69" as the route number tends to command a higher asking price on the secondhand market.  It took me years to find a reasonably priced I-69 shield which ended up being one of the less desirable 36x36 variety.
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.