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: Route 14U  (Read 17394 times)

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6250
  • Your friendly neighborhood meteorologist

  • Location: Tallahassee, FL
  • Last Login: February 23, 2024, 09:23:28 AM
    • Utah Highways
Re: Route 14U
« Reply #25 on: December 30, 2017, 01:13:42 AM »

So does Caltrans typically relinquish maintenance of any route that passes through a city limit to that city?

cahwyguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 807
  • California Highway Guy

  • Age: 64
  • Location: Northridge, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:20:40 PM
    • California Highways
Re: Route 14U
« Reply #26 on: December 30, 2017, 01:20:35 AM »

Normally, only if the city requests the relinquishment. Then a bill is passed to authorize it, then there is improvement made so it is at a maintenance point that the city will financially take it. It actually can be a multiyear process. Look at my pages to see how long. Route 2 is probably a good example -- that was the first such relinquishment like that I recall.
Logged
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Podcast (CA Route by Route): http://caroutebyroute.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

cahwyguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 807
  • California Highway Guy

  • Age: 64
  • Location: Northridge, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:20:40 PM
    • California Highways
Re: Route 14U
« Reply #27 on: December 30, 2017, 01:22:55 AM »

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).       

Often, it isn't only the expense. When a city wants to do some major development or traffic changes, they want control. With Caltrans control, they have to go to the CTC for almost every street connection. I remember that being a issue ages ago when SDC (a company long gone) wanted to build a building at 3000 Olympic, back when Olympic was SSR 26.
Logged
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Podcast (CA Route by Route): http://caroutebyroute.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8487
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 30, 2023, 05:42:25 PM
Re: Route 14U
« Reply #28 on: December 30, 2017, 01:30:20 AM »

So does Caltrans typically relinquish maintenance of any route that passes through a city limit to that city?

In regards to larger cities, they certainly seem to be trying to do so.  Whether they're successful depends upon whether a particular city wishes to take over maintenance of the roadway (obviously adding to city expenditures); often, if the city wants to modify or alter the roads' configuration outside state highway parameters (road diets, landscaping, etc.) they'll petition Caltrans for relinquishment.  Of course, this assumes the city has not only the revenues to assume maintenance but also to undertake the modifications.  In the case of both 185 and 238, Hayward apparently is willing and able to satisfy both criteria (they assumed partial ownership of the connecting CA 92 several years ago) in order to alter traffic patterns in their downtown district (creating a one-way couplet out of what was 185 (now SB) and 238 (NB) north of the former junction.  Hayward has been accumulating revenues in the last several years from development of major industrial parks west of I-880 and north and south of CA 92; they seem to have better cash flow than some of their neighbors, including San Lorenzo to the northwest and San Leandro to the north; both have essentially "maxed out" their developable area and are hemmed in by other cities and Oakland Airport to the west.  Expending funds to maintain streets now under the parvenu of Caltrans just isn't in the cards for the time being, so the state highways still use city arterials within their limits.  With the Hayward and county relinquishments, CA 185 effectively terminates (SB) at/near I-238. 
Logged

cahwyguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 807
  • California Highway Guy

  • Age: 64
  • Location: Northridge, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:20:40 PM
    • California Highways
Re: Route 14U
« Reply #29 on: December 30, 2017, 01:36:36 AM »

With the Hayward and county relinquishments, CA 185 effectively terminates (SB) at/near I-238. 

And yet, they don't modify the route definition to catch up with the relinquishments, seemingly creating the potential for a new and different routing if the need ever arises. One of these days, a "cleaning of the codes" bill needs to catch up the legislative definitions with the relinquishments. (It also results in the situations -- again, Route 2 is a good example -- where relinquishment words get dropped in dueling bills.)

Logged
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Podcast (CA Route by Route): http://caroutebyroute.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6250
  • Your friendly neighborhood meteorologist

  • Location: Tallahassee, FL
  • Last Login: February 23, 2024, 09:23:28 AM
    • Utah Highways
Re: Route 14U
« Reply #30 on: December 30, 2017, 01:38:00 AM »

So does Caltrans typically relinquish maintenance of any route that passes through a city limit to that city?

In regards to larger cities, they certainly seem to be trying to do so.  Whether they're successful depends upon whether a particular city wishes to take over maintenance of the roadway (obviously adding to city expenditures); often, if the city wants to modify or alter the roads' configuration outside state highway parameters (road diets, landscaping, etc.) they'll petition Caltrans for relinquishment.  Of course, this assumes the city has not only the revenues to assume maintenance but also to undertake the modifications.  In the case of both 185 and 238, Hayward apparently is willing and able to satisfy both criteria (they assumed partial ownership of the connecting CA 92 several years ago) in order to alter traffic patterns in their downtown district (creating a one-way couplet out of what was 185 (now SB) and 238 (NB) north of the former junction.  Hayward has been accumulating revenues in the last several years from development of major industrial parks west of I-880 and north and south of CA 92; they seem to have better cash flow than some of their neighbors, including San Lorenzo to the northwest and San Leandro to the north; both have essentially "maxed out" their developable area and are hemmed in by other cities and Oakland Airport to the west.  Expending funds to maintain streets now under the parvenu of Caltrans just isn't in the cards for the time being, so the state highways still use city arterials within their limits.  With the Hayward and county relinquishments, CA 185 effectively terminates (SB) at/near I-238. 

That’s such a weird concept to me. In Utah, the state maintains a lot of roads (almost every exit off I-15 in the Salt Lake urban corridor is to a state highway) and the state maintains every traffic light along a numbered highway. In the few cases I can think of where cities did ask for maintenance, it often resulted in a series of decommissionings and/or realignments of other connecting routes.

In Utah, every road that the state maintains gets a number, and every numbered route is maintained by the state. Obviously CA doesn’t follow this.

emory

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 350
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: August 20, 2020, 12:40:23 AM
Re: Route 14U
« Reply #31 on: December 30, 2017, 03:13:53 AM »

That’s such a weird concept to me. In Utah, the state maintains a lot of roads (almost every exit off I-15 in the Salt Lake urban corridor is to a state highway) and the state maintains every traffic light along a numbered highway. In the few cases I can think of where cities did ask for maintenance, it often resulted in a series of decommissionings and/or realignments of other connecting routes.

In Utah, every road that the state maintains gets a number, and every numbered route is maintained by the state. Obviously CA doesn’t follow this.

California doesn't prefer to maintain local roads, which is why when a conventional highway is dropped from the state highway system, a new route is virtually never adopted. Not to mention that, by law, the local municipality has to keep the road forever and the state cannot take it back. This leads to a lot of broken routes, outdated signage, and confusing signage since California signs its highways for maintenance and databases as opposed to navigation.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 24920
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 09:57:10 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: Route 14U
« Reply #32 on: December 30, 2017, 09:15:27 AM »

That’s such a weird concept to me. In Utah, the state maintains a lot of roads (almost every exit off I-15 in the Salt Lake urban corridor is to a state highway) and the state maintains every traffic light along a numbered highway. In the few cases I can think of where cities did ask for maintenance, it often resulted in a series of decommissionings and/or realignments of other connecting routes.

In Utah, every road that the state maintains gets a number, and every numbered route is maintained by the state. Obviously CA doesn’t follow this.

California doesn't prefer to maintain local roads, which is why when a conventional highway is dropped from the state highway system, a new route is virtually never adopted. Not to mention that, by law, the local municipality has to keep the road forever and the state cannot take it back. This leads to a lot of broken routes, outdated signage, and confusing signage since California signs its highways for maintenance and databases as opposed to navigation.

Usually there is something written in the legislative language about the local level maintaining signage in fapped relinquished sections.  Rarely does this happen once the original shields disappear from a relinquished section of highway.  Some places like the example I gave with 130 in San Jose the local agency likely outright removed the shields. 
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8487
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 30, 2023, 05:42:25 PM
Re: Route 14U
« Reply #33 on: December 30, 2017, 02:30:50 PM »

If you look at a Caltrans multi-year STIP, you'll find that about a third of the funds apportioned for roadway work are subsidized local projects not on state-maintained highways; this percentage has been increasing since the late '90's as local jurisdictions are finding it increasingly difficult to fund major projects -- so Caltrans, as an omnibus transportation agency (rather than the highway department it was before 1973) is increasingly called upon to effectively subsidize local projects in addition to maintaining the roads under their specific control.  So it's often, in economic terms, a moot point regarding local vs. state control of a road -- more often than not much if not most of the funding comes out of the Caltrans till!
Logged

emory

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 350
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: August 20, 2020, 12:40:23 AM
Re: Route 14U
« Reply #34 on: January 01, 2018, 04:44:22 AM »

That’s such a weird concept to me. In Utah, the state maintains a lot of roads (almost every exit off I-15 in the Salt Lake urban corridor is to a state highway) and the state maintains every traffic light along a numbered highway. In the few cases I can think of where cities did ask for maintenance, it often resulted in a series of decommissionings and/or realignments of other connecting routes.

In Utah, every road that the state maintains gets a number, and every numbered route is maintained by the state. Obviously CA doesn’t follow this.

California doesn't prefer to maintain local roads, which is why when a conventional highway is dropped from the state highway system, a new route is virtually never adopted. Not to mention that, by law, the local municipality has to keep the road forever and the state cannot take it back. This leads to a lot of broken routes, outdated signage, and confusing signage since California signs its highways for maintenance and databases as opposed to navigation.

Usually there is something written in the legislative language about the local level maintaining signage in fapped relinquished sections.  Rarely does this happen once the original shields disappear from a relinquished section of highway.  Some places like the example I gave with 130 in San Jose the local agency likely outright removed the shields.

That's what happens more often than not. The city just takes down the shields and does nothing, or better, an "END" plate is added when a route breaks. The CA 1 relinquishment in Santa Monica is one of the more paid attention to route breaks around here, to the point where even I-10's overheads have been modified to say "TO" on them. A segment of CA 39 has been given permission to be taken over by the City of Anaheim and I'm curious to see if and what they'll do with the shields.
Logged

mrpablue

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 147
  • Age: 19
  • Last Login: May 13, 2019, 07:15:43 PM
Re: Route 14U
« Reply #35 on: January 20, 2018, 07:33:22 PM »

There are too many unsigned/sparsely-signed routes in NorCal: SR51, SR77 (http://bit.ly/2Dj6X7J), SR112, SR123 (http://bit.ly/2EYRASs), SR185, SR222, SR262 (http://bit.ly/2mXE6zL), SR 283… I'm probably forgetting some. If you're gonna sign SR14U, sign them all.

The money for the 14U signs should go to signs for routes that make sense.
Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4018
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: March 17, 2024, 11:51:21 PM
Re: Route 14U
« Reply #36 on: January 21, 2018, 12:33:28 PM »

Agreed.  It seems that Caltrans does not want any signage for former routes that is no longer under their maintenance.  But those should still be signed in some way, maybe as R routes, for relinquished.

We do need those routes for navigational purposes.
Logged

roadfro

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4870
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Reno, NV
  • Last Login: March 17, 2024, 07:21:57 PM
Re: Route 14U
« Reply #37 on: January 21, 2018, 01:13:21 PM »

Agreed.  It seems that Caltrans does not want any signage for former routes that is no longer under their maintenance.  But those should still be signed in some way, maybe as R routes, for relinquished.

We do need those routes for navigational purposes.

I'd say it's not Caltrans, but the jurisdictions that take over maintenance. The laws regarding relinquishment typically state that the city/county/whatever will maintain signs directing to the continuation of the routes, but that doesn't always happen.
Logged
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

oscar

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 10936
  • Age: 68
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 10:00:26 PM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: Route 14U
« Reply #38 on: January 21, 2018, 01:48:54 PM »

Agreed.  It seems that Caltrans does not want any signage for former routes that is no longer under their maintenance.  But those should still be signed in some way, maybe as R routes, for relinquished.

We do need those routes for navigational purposes.

The local governments that take over relinquished route segments are usually required to maintain some signage to guide travelers to the continuation of the route, or some other part of the state highway system. But that requirement is often treated as a joke, and I'm not sure how it gets enforced.

The governments that don't treat that requirement as a joke often just keep up the old route markers for as long as they last. If you require them to replace the markers with "R" markers, the old markers may just disappear, never to be replaced. And does Caltrans even have authority to erect "R" markers on roads it no longer maintains?

There are too many unsigned/sparsely-signed routes in NorCal: SR51, SR77 (http://bit.ly/2Dj6X7J), SR112, SR123 (http://bit.ly/2EYRASs), SR185, SR222, SR262 (http://bit.ly/2mXE6zL), SR 283… I'm probably forgetting some. If you're gonna sign SR14U, sign them all.

The money for the 14U signs should go to signs for routes that make sense.

14U might just be a District 7 thing, or maybe shoving in Santa Clarita's face that the state really, really wants the city to take over that superseded part of old 14 (Los Angeles and Kern Counties took over the rest of the old route, which is now signed only as part of Historic US 6). Other Caltrans districts just remove the signage for the routes they want to remove from the state highway system (see below for examples), but for some reason not D7. At least one other U route doesn't have U signage, though the one I have in mind (8U across the river from Yuma AZ) is signed as part of an Interstate business loop.

As for some of the other routes mentioned:

51 is signed as part of Business I-80. The 51 designation keeps under state maintenance the part of old I-80 through Sacramento that isn't part of another route such as US 50.

222 used to serve a state hospital. The hospital has since been closed, and there is now a Buddhist religious facility on its grounds. Caltrans probably would like to give away that highway to the city of Ukiah, but maybe the city and/or the state legislature won't agree. In any case, it no longer belongs in the state highway system IMO, and the lack of signage (except on milemarkers and bridge identification markers) reflects its unimportance to the general public.

283 is a bridge, on a route otherwise relinquished to a local government that apparently doesn't want to pay for bridge maintenance. It is part of a (barely signed) US 101 business route. 275 is similar, the beautiful but expensive-to-maintain Tower Bridge over the Sacramento River, that Caltrans is having a harder time fobbing off on a local government than the rest of former 275 (which has no 275 signage, the state didn't require it).
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8487
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 30, 2023, 05:42:25 PM
Re: Route 14U
« Reply #39 on: January 22, 2018, 12:58:32 AM »

As for some of the other routes mentioned:
222 used to serve a state hospital. The hospital has since been closed, and there is now a Buddhist religious facility on its grounds. Caltrans probably would like to give away that highway to the city of Ukiah, but maybe the city and/or the state legislature won't agree. In any case, it no longer belongs in the state highway system IMO, and the lack of signage (except on milemarkers and bridge identification markers) reflects its unimportance to the general public.

CA 222 is still on the state books for the same reason that the highly truncated 275 and 283 are: maintenance of a bridge; in this instance, one over the Russian River.  It's in a relatively flood-prone area, and Mendocino County, in which the facility resides, would rather not assume maintenance of the bridge, which provides access from Ukiah to not only the Buddhist retreat that's on the former state hospital grounds but also residences and farms (particularly vineyards; this is within the northern reaches of "wine country") on the east bank of the river.  So it remains an unsigned state highway; even during the late '60's push to sign anything under state maintenance, this particular short highway seems to have escaped unshielded!
Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4018
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: March 17, 2024, 11:51:21 PM
Re: Route 14U
« Reply #40 on: January 24, 2018, 07:27:34 PM »

As for some of the other routes mentioned:
222 used to serve a state hospital. The hospital has since been closed, and there is now a Buddhist religious facility on its grounds. Caltrans probably would like to give away that highway to the city of Ukiah, but maybe the city and/or the state legislature won't agree. In any case, it no longer belongs in the state highway system IMO, and the lack of signage (except on milemarkers and bridge identification markers) reflects its unimportance to the general public.

CA 222 is still on the state books for the same reason that the highly truncated 275 and 283 are: maintenance of a bridge; in this instance, one over the Russian River.  It's in a relatively flood-prone area, and Mendocino County, in which the facility resides, would rather not assume maintenance of the bridge, which provides access from Ukiah to not only the Buddhist retreat that's on the former state hospital grounds but also residences and farms (particularly vineyards; this is within the northern reaches of "wine country") on the east bank of the river.  So it remains an unsigned state highway; even during the late '60's push to sign anything under state maintenance, this particular short highway seems to have escaped unshielded!

Google maps seems to sign all of these.
Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4018
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: March 17, 2024, 11:51:21 PM
Re: Route 14U
« Reply #41 on: January 24, 2018, 07:51:47 PM »

Agreed.  It seems that Caltrans does not want any signage for former routes that is no longer under their maintenance.  But those should still be signed in some way, maybe as R routes, for relinquished.

We do need those routes for navigational purposes.

I'd say it's not Caltrans, but the jurisdictions that take over maintenance. The laws regarding relinquishment typically state that the city/county/whatever will maintain signs directing to the continuation of the routes, but that doesn't always happen.

Then there needs to be some better enforcement power on the part of the state.  The feds forced states to accept a 21 y.o. drinking age by telling states that they would not receive highway funding unless they raised the age to this level.  The state could do similar by withholding certain payments to the localities if they do not adeqately sign the roads. 
Logged

jrouse

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 303
  • Location: Sacramento, CA
  • Last Login: March 11, 2024, 08:42:28 PM
Re: Route 14U
« Reply #42 on: January 24, 2018, 10:36:29 PM »

If you look at a Caltrans multi-year STIP, you'll find that about a third of the funds apportioned for roadway work are subsidized local projects not on state-maintained highways; this percentage has been increasing since the late '90's as local jurisdictions are finding it increasingly difficult to fund major projects -- so Caltrans, as an omnibus transportation agency (rather than the highway department it was before 1973) is increasingly called upon to effectively subsidize local projects in addition to maintaining the roads under their specific control.  So it's often, in economic terms, a moot point regarding local vs. state control of a road -- more often than not much if not most of the funding comes out of the Caltrans till!

No, what happened was that in 1998, legislation was passed that gave local agencies control of 75 percent of the revenues from the state’s gasoline excise tax. 
Logged

oscar

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 10936
  • Age: 68
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 10:00:26 PM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: Route 14U
« Reply #43 on: January 24, 2018, 11:09:26 PM »

Then there needs to be some better enforcement power on the part of the state.  The feds forced states to accept a 21 y.o. drinking age by telling states that they would not receive highway funding unless they raised the age to this level.  The state could do similar by withholding certain payments to the localities if they do not adeqately sign the roads.

One of the relinquished sections of state highways where former route signage has disappeared is in the state capital, Sacramento, where Caltrans is headquartered. The non-compliance with the state law requiring continuation signage can't possibly have escaped the notice of Caltrans, or state legislators. I don't know whether their hands are tied somehow, or more likely that they just don't care.

Funny thing is that part but not all of the relinquished CA 160 segment in Sacramento has excellent Historic US 40 signage. But no CA 160 signage, except perhaps at the north end of the segment just before state maintenance (and full CA 160 route signage) resumes at the American River bridge. 
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 29128
  • My 2 Achilles' heels: sarcasm & snark

  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: Today at 09:31:10 PM
Re: Route 14U
« Reply #44 on: January 25, 2018, 01:28:17 PM »

I wonder what Caltrans would think if they knew there was this much online discussion about such a weird little route.
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. Dick
If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

oscar

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 10936
  • Age: 68
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 10:00:26 PM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: Route 14U
« Reply #45 on: January 25, 2018, 01:40:21 PM »

I wonder what Caltrans would think if they knew there was this much online discussion about such a weird little route.

If they didn't before, they do now. See the second post before yours.
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 24920
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 09:57:10 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: Route 14U
« Reply #46 on: January 25, 2018, 02:56:49 PM »

I wonder what Caltrans would think if they knew there was this much online discussion about such a weird little route.

If they didn't before, they do now. See the second post before yours.

I’m sure it wouldn’t surprise anyone oddities are discussed.  Really it’s only people like us that would generally talk highways or reach out to DOTs. 
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8487
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 30, 2023, 05:42:25 PM
Re: Route 14U
« Reply #47 on: January 25, 2018, 04:39:24 PM »

If you look at a Caltrans multi-year STIP, you'll find that about a third of the funds apportioned for roadway work are subsidized local projects not on state-maintained highways; this percentage has been increasing since the late '90's as local jurisdictions are finding it increasingly difficult to fund major projects -- so Caltrans, as an omnibus transportation agency (rather than the highway department it was before 1973) is increasingly called upon to effectively subsidize local projects in addition to maintaining the roads under their specific control.  So it's often, in economic terms, a moot point regarding local vs. state control of a road -- more often than not much if not most of the funding comes out of the Caltrans till!

No, what happened was that in 1998, legislation was passed that gave local agencies control of 75 percent of the revenues from the state’s gasoline excise tax. 

Shit -- leave the state for a few years for grad school and this gets into the books.  Must have slipped under my own radar -- but not terribly surprised it's in place, given the direction Caltrans has taken over the last couple of decades -- both in terms of funding availability and prioritization -- including the decline in maintenance, signage standards.  But it, even in a whimsical sense, makes one wonder about the agency's eagerness to relinquish urban facilities when they're probably going to end up paying for their upkeep in any case!
Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4018
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: March 17, 2024, 11:51:21 PM
Re: Route 14U
« Reply #48 on: January 31, 2018, 06:20:49 PM »

Then there needs to be some better enforcement power on the part of the state.  The feds forced states to accept a 21 y.o. drinking age by telling states that they would not receive highway funding unless they raised the age to this level.  The state could do similar by withholding certain payments to the localities if they do not adeqately sign the roads.

One of the relinquished sections of state highways where former route signage has disappeared is in the state capital, Sacramento, where Caltrans is headquartered. The non-compliance with the state law requiring continuation signage can't possibly have escaped the notice of Caltrans, or state legislators. I don't know whether their hands are tied somehow, or more likely that they just don't care.

Funny thing is that part but not all of the relinquished CA 160 segment in Sacramento has excellent Historic US 40 signage. But no CA 160 signage, except perhaps at the north end of the segment just before state maintenance (and full CA 160 route signage) resumes at the American River bridge.

I think they just don't care and figure that everyone will just use GPS for navigation purposes.  Sad. 

In reallity, navigation should be done better.  In the old days, the government was inept and it was actually the local AAA clubs (CSAA and ACSC) that put in some really good signage all over the state.  Perhaps those days  are coming back.
Logged

cahwyguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 807
  • California Highway Guy

  • Age: 64
  • Location: Northridge, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:20:40 PM
    • California Highways
Re: Route 14U
« Reply #49 on: June 10, 2018, 09:15:26 AM »

I'll just note that, while in the process of adding postmiles to my pages for the next update, I ran into a Route 101U (US 101). There are actually a couple of portions of it; I don't know if it is signed in the field. Here are the two original references from my site when I uncovered it:

In April 2010, the CTC approved relinquishment of right of way in the county of Mendocino along Route 101U (Geyser Road) from the Sonoma County line to Route 101, consisting of superseded highway right of way.

In June 2013, the CTC authorized relinquishment of right of way in the county of Mendocino on Route 101U in the Confusion Hill area, consisting of superseded highway right of way.

Logged
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Podcast (CA Route by Route): http://caroutebyroute.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

 


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.