Other California County Routes

[cahwyguy]

After posting my change note, I realized I had missed some routes. These fall into the category of numbered routes, not in the lettered sign route system. My question to you: Should I include them on my pages.

Two are a clear YES: San Bernardino Route 66, and (if I can find more information) San Diego 680. Here's an article on 680: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-encinitas-slow-to-provide-highway-680-alternative-2001feb11-story.html . If anyone has more references, I would appreciate them.

ETA: Here are a few more that mention 680: https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/gpupdate/docs/GP/ME_sandieguito.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_56
https://www.aaroads.com/california/ca-056.html

As for the rest? Take a look at https://www.cahighways.org/county0.html . Four of the routes are in Lake County, and the numbers refer to the Lake County Road system. I generally haven't included pages for each numbered County Road -- they aren't signed, nor well documented, and it would be an incredible amount of work. Should I delete them?

The other four are routes that Andy Field referenced ages ago. See https://www.cahighways.org/county_.html . They don't appear to be part of any numbered route system. Andy?

Thanks for your advice.

Daniel

[Max Rockatansky]

There is even more than what is on the list.  I know for certain there is at least one in Nevada County that is signed with a County Route shield from CA 89...granted the number eludes me at present moment.  Really my opinion would be to only post stuff that is officially part of the Signed County Route program which if I recall correctly San Bernardino County Route 66 is.

[NE2]

I wouldn't say SA 680 (an MPO designation?) was a county route any more than the unbuilt expressways from LA County plans that were never added to the state system.

[Max Rockatansky]

Something that I think might be neat to see potentially in the future is some sort of separate page regarding how some of the counties have their own Postmile designations.  For example; Tulare and Kern County have postmiled routes in the Sierra while others line San Benito County postmile everything.  That said, the county level DOT stuff is hard to come by at times and most of what I observed is just from field observations.

[cahwyguy]

I wouldn't say SA 680 (an MPO designation?) was a county route any more than the unbuilt expressways from LA County plans that were never added to the state system.

I think SA 680 is worth discussing simply because of its impact on Route 56, much more so than other routes.

[NE2]

Maybe make a page for the mountain routes?

[cahwyguy]

I wouldn't say SA 680 (an MPO designation?) was a county route any more than the unbuilt expressways from LA County plans that were never added to the state system.

You can see the page on 66 and 680 at https://www.cahighways.org/county0.html .
I think SA 680 is worth discussing simply because of its impact on Route 56, much more so than other routes.

[andy3175]

I wouldn't say SA 680 (an MPO designation?) was a county route any more than the unbuilt expressways from LA County plans that were never added to the state system.

You can see the page on 66 and 680 at https://www.cahighways.org/county0.html .
I think SA 680 is worth discussing simply because of its impact on Route 56, much more so than other routes.

SA 680 was just a select arterial designation, of which there are many in San Diego County. It was not conceived as a signed county route and probably should not be shown in that way. It has more of a history as being a potential link to the never-constructed SR 125 north of SR 52 that would have linked 125 with I-5. However, with much development along Select Arterial 680 having been planned and built, any continuous route along that corridor is unlikely if not impossible to happen. SA 680 never achieved signed county route status, was not signed, and will likely not be built.

[andy3175]

The other four are routes that Andy Field referenced ages ago. See https://www.cahighways.org/county_.html . They don't appear to be part of any numbered route system. Andy?

Delete them. I have no proof of their official status, and I have not seen them signed as part of the county system.

Route C-1 (the only one of the C series in the signed route system) used to be signed from US 101 but is not anymore.

[cahwyguy]

I wouldn't say SA 680 (an MPO designation?) was a county route any more than the unbuilt expressways from LA County plans that were never added to the state system.

You can see the page on 66 and 680 at https://www.cahighways.org/county0.html .
I think SA 680 is worth discussing simply because of its impact on Route 56, much more so than other routes.

SA 680 was just a select arterial designation, of which there are many in San Diego County. It was not conceived as a signed county route and probably should not be shown in that way. It has more of a history as being a potential link to the never-constructed SR 125 north of SR 52 that would have linked 125 with I-5. However, with much development along Select Arterial 680 having been planned and built, any continuous route along that corridor is unlikely if not impossible to happen. SA 680 never achieved signed county route status, was not signed, and will likely not be built.

However, even if that route is never built (and I have records on many unbuilt state routes), it is referenced more than other SA routes. So it is on the numbered route page, and I've even figured out likely routings and added some links to news articles that mentioned it.

But that's probably about it for the county routes. The letters, 66, and SA680.