News:

why is this up in the corner now

Main Menu

Thornton Ave exits on I-880 no longer signed as CA-84

Started by FredAkbar, October 16, 2024, 01:23:16 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

FredAkbar

In recent months, possibly as part of the repaving project, the BGSes on I-880 in both directions in Alameda County say "Thornton Ave" with no CA-84 shield. Previously, the exit was signed including a mention of 84 (example) or 84 East (example). (84-W is one mile to the north, at the Decoto Rd / Dumbarton Bridge exit.)

Why was the CA-84 signage removed? Google Maps still shows that section of Thornton Ave as being CA-84.


pderocco

According to cahighways.org, it looks like the part between I-880 and CA-238 is being relinquished. However, Fremont is supposed to maintain signage for it, with "TO" banners perhaps, so one would think that CalTrans would too.

Max Rockatansky

D4 is the poster child for why making Route Shields synonymous with maintenance is stupid. 

TheStranger

Related to this:

Is the 84 realignment roughly along/near Decoto Road still an active project?
Chris Sampang

cl94

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 16, 2024, 08:37:48 AMD4 is the poster child for why making Route Shields synonymous with maintenance is stupid. 

See also: CA 130, CA 238.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

DTComposer

Quote from: TheStranger on October 16, 2024, 06:25:06 PMRelated to this:

Is the 84 realignment roughly along/near Decoto Road still an active project?

The last I read Union City was still developing its section (Mission Blvd to Paseo Padre Parkway) as the Quarry Lakes Parkway, but Fremont is content with its section (Paseo Padre and Decoto to I-880) remaining as surface streets.

Quote from: cl94 on October 17, 2024, 10:28:26 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 16, 2024, 08:37:48 AMD4 is the poster child for why making Route Shields synonymous with maintenance is stupid. 

See also: CA 130, CA 238.

Districts 7 and 11 do a "great" job with this as well (see CA-1, CA-19, CA-39, CA-72, CA-91).

Perhaps, when these relinquishments happen, Caltrans should install the "TO" signage themselves, send the city the bill, and not actually relinquish until the bill is paid.

michravera

Quote from: FredAkbar on October 16, 2024, 01:23:16 AMIn recent months, possibly as part of the repaving project, the BGSes on I-880 in both directions in Alameda County say "Thornton Ave" with no CA-84 shield. Previously, the exit was signed including a mention of 84 (example) or 84 East (example). (84-W is one mile to the north, at the Decoto Rd / Dumbarton Bridge exit.)

Why was the CA-84 signage removed? Google Maps still shows that section of Thornton Ave as being CA-84.
I'll be driving by it at least twice today. Once in the next 15 minutes. I'll let you know what I see.

michravera

Quote from: michravera on October 18, 2024, 10:36:44 AM
Quote from: FredAkbar on October 16, 2024, 01:23:16 AMIn recent months, possibly as part of the repaving project, the BGSes on I-880 in both directions in Alameda County say "Thornton Ave" with no CA-84 shield. Previously, the exit was signed including a mention of 84 (example) or 84 East (example). (84-W is one mile to the north, at the Decoto Rd / Dumbarton Bridge exit.)

Why was the CA-84 signage removed? Google Maps still shows that section of Thornton Ave as being CA-84.
I'll be driving by it at least twice today. Once in the next 15 minutes. I'll let you know what I see.
Northbound, all of the references to CA SR-84 South of Thornton are gone replaced by green panels. If you knew where to look, you can see those panels. There is a remnant along I-880. The reassurance marker still has CA SR-84 below the I-880 sign about halfway between Thornton and Decoto.

TheStranger

#8
Quote from: DTComposer on October 18, 2024, 10:32:56 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on October 16, 2024, 06:25:06 PMRelated to this:

Is the 84 realignment roughly along/near Decoto Road still an active project?

The last I read Union City was still developing its section (Mission Blvd to Paseo Padre Parkway) as the Quarry Lakes Parkway, but Fremont is content with its section (Paseo Padre and Decoto to I-880) remaining as surface streets.

Here's Union City's project page on the road:
https://www.unioncity.org/499/Quarry-Lakes-Parkway-Project

---

Did a quick Google overhead view of the area and noticed, there's still right of way remaining for a diamond interchange at Fremont Boulevard (though this is the Fremont section that has no work planned on it for the immediate/long-tem future)
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5699289,-122.03074,1056m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTAxNS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
Chris Sampang

SeriesE

CA-84 is so discontinuous, it might be better if the individual segments as separate numbers

FredAkbar

Quote from: michravera on October 18, 2024, 12:02:01 PMNorthbound, all of the references to CA SR-84 South of Thornton are gone replaced by green panels. If you knew where to look, you can see those panels. There is a remnant along I-880. The reassurance marker still has CA SR-84 below the I-880 sign about halfway between Thornton and Decoto.

If the relinquishment was only Thornton Ave and beyond, then the conurrency with I-880 technically still exists. Strange for a highway to run concurrent with another highway only to end as part of that concurrency instead of "leaving" the host highway.

michravera

Quote from: FredAkbar on October 18, 2024, 08:13:35 PM
Quote from: michravera on October 18, 2024, 12:02:01 PMNorthbound, all of the references to CA SR-84 South of Thornton are gone replaced by green panels. If you knew where to look, you can see those panels. There is a remnant along I-880. The reassurance marker still has CA SR-84 below the I-880 sign about halfway between Thornton and Decoto.

If the relinquishment was only Thornton Ave and beyond, then the conurrency with I-880 technically still exists. Strange for a highway to run concurrent with another highway only to end as part of that concurrency instead of "leaving" the host highway.

Southbound, the Advance signs show both Decoto as CA SR-84 West and Thornton as CA SR-84 East.


TheStranger

Quote from: SeriesE on October 18, 2024, 06:57:09 PMCA-84 is so discontinuous, it might be better if the individual segments as separate numbers

I've always been of the mindset that the north-south Route 84 between Rio Vista and West Sacramento should have been numbered something different - not even sure why that was ever theorized to be one numbered route with the east-west SaN Gregorio-Livermore road.
Chris Sampang

Max Rockatansky

The whole thing with 160 being signed in field but legislatively 84 from near Rio Vista to Antioch was weird. 

GaryA

Quote from: FredAkbar on October 18, 2024, 08:13:35 PM
Quote from: michravera on October 18, 2024, 12:02:01 PMNorthbound, all of the references to CA SR-84 South of Thornton are gone replaced by green panels. If you knew where to look, you can see those panels. There is a remnant along I-880. The reassurance marker still has CA SR-84 below the I-880 sign about halfway between Thornton and Decoto.

If the relinquishment was only Thornton Ave and beyond, then the conurrency with I-880 technically still exists. Strange for a highway to run concurrent with another highway only to end as part of that concurrency instead of "leaving" the host highway.

There's no concurrency -- technically, section (b) ends at Decoto and 880, and section (c) begins (or began, after relinquishment) at Thompson and 880.  It would be odd to keep any co-signage.  California doesn't do concurrencies as a rule -- one highway continues through, and the other ends a section at one junction and begins another at the other (and may or may not be co-signed between the two).

mrsman

Quote from: DTComposer on October 18, 2024, 10:32:56 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on October 16, 2024, 06:25:06 PMRelated to this:

Is the 84 realignment roughly along/near Decoto Road still an active project?

The last I read Union City was still developing its section (Mission Blvd to Paseo Padre Parkway) as the Quarry Lakes Parkway, but Fremont is content with its section (Paseo Padre and Decoto to I-880) remaining as surface streets.

Quote from: cl94 on October 17, 2024, 10:28:26 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 16, 2024, 08:37:48 AMD4 is the poster child for why making Route Shields synonymous with maintenance is stupid. 

See also: CA 130, CA 238.

Districts 7 and 11 do a "great" job with this as well (see CA-1, CA-19, CA-39, CA-72, CA-91).

Perhaps, when these relinquishments happen, Caltrans should install the "TO" signage themselves, send the city the bill, and not actually relinquish until the bill is paid.


I've never understood why this was such a problem.

While a street is under Caltrans maintenance, there are generally enough road-side shields to still aid in navigation.  When Caltrans walks away and the cities takeover, why not just leave the signage alone?  Do people steal them, even if they don't steal the no parking signs and the stop signs and other road signs that are left?  I can't imagine these signs need replacing all that often.


Max Rockatansky

Usually the relinquishments require the local jurisdiction maintain continuation signage.  The problem is most local agencies don't care to do this and there is no enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance. 

FWIW, pertaining to urban surface mileage Caltrans and the CTC have been trying to shed what they can when possible.  One way they seem to get cities interested in accepting relinquishments is not updating pedestrian standards.  I've noticed that much of the previous signage tends to disappear once those corridors are refurbished by the accepting local authority.

mrsman

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 21, 2024, 12:29:25 PMUsually the relinquishments require the local jurisdiction maintain continuation signage.  The problem is most local agencies don't care to do this and there is no enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance. 

FWIW, pertaining to urban surface mileage Caltrans and the CTC have been trying to shed what they can when possible.  One way they seem to get cities interested in accepting relinquishments is not updating pedestrian standards.  I've noticed that much of the previous signage tends to disappear once those corridors are refurbished by the accepting local authority.

It does seem like there is a relation.  Any of these road diet projects to improve pedestrian/bike infrastructure or to slow traffic seems like a big impetus for relinquishment.  Local control of streets because local city wants to improve the atmosphere of the main street in town, while Caltrans would not do much of anything.

Rothman

Quote from: mrsman on October 21, 2024, 03:29:24 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 21, 2024, 12:29:25 PMUsually the relinquishments require the local jurisdiction maintain continuation signage.  The problem is most local agencies don't care to do this and there is no enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance. 

FWIW, pertaining to urban surface mileage Caltrans and the CTC have been trying to shed what they can when possible.  One way they seem to get cities interested in accepting relinquishments is not updating pedestrian standards.  I've noticed that much of the previous signage tends to disappear once those corridors are refurbished by the accepting local authority.

It does seem like there is a relation.  Any of these road diet projects to improve pedestrian/bike infrastructure or to slow traffic seems like a big impetus for relinquishment.  Local control of streets because local city wants to improve the atmosphere of the main street in town, while Caltrans would not do much of anything.

I absolutely love NYSDOT's policy of "You fix our stuff [NYSDOT-owned facilities], you own it (except in cases of the dreaded reverse betterment)."

(personal opinion strongly emphasized)
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

pderocco

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 21, 2024, 12:29:25 PMUsually the relinquishments require the local jurisdiction maintain continuation signage.  The problem is most local agencies don't care to do this and there is no enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance.

Usually they'd have to add TO banners above the existing signs. The only place I've noticed that happen is in Santa Monica along Lincoln Blvd which used to be CA-1.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 21, 2024, 12:29:25 PMFWIW, pertaining to urban surface mileage Caltrans and the CTC have been trying to shed what they can when possible.  One way they seem to get cities interested in accepting relinquishments is not updating pedestrian standards.  I've noticed that much of the previous signage tends to disappear once those corridors are refurbished by the accepting local authority.

Travelmapping users can sit back in their living rooms and watch their clinched road percentages slowly climb.

SeriesE

Quote from: TheStranger on October 19, 2024, 03:07:05 AM
Quote from: SeriesE on October 18, 2024, 06:57:09 PMCA-84 is so discontinuous, it might be better if the individual segments as separate numbers

I've always been of the mindset that the north-south Route 84 between Rio Vista and West Sacramento should have been numbered something different - not even sure why that was ever theorized to be one numbered route with the east-west SaN Gregorio-Livermore road.

To clarify, I think that each segment needs its own number:
  • CA-1 to I-280 (assuming the segment between I-280 and US-101 is going to be relinquished eventually; otherwise to US-101)
  • US-101 to I-880 (Bayfront Expwy and Dumbarton Bridge)
  • CA-238 to I-680 (Niles Canyon Road)
  • I-680 to I-580 (though this can get the same number as the above segment given both are rural in nature and the gap is less than a mile)
  • Sacramento County segment

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: pderocco on October 21, 2024, 05:04:52 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 21, 2024, 12:29:25 PMUsually the relinquishments require the local jurisdiction maintain continuation signage.  The problem is most local agencies don't care to do this and there is no enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance.

Usually they'd have to add TO banners above the existing signs. The only place I've noticed that happen is in Santa Monica along Lincoln Blvd which used to be CA-1.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 21, 2024, 12:29:25 PMFWIW, pertaining to urban surface mileage Caltrans and the CTC have been trying to shed what they can when possible.  One way they seem to get cities interested in accepting relinquishments is not updating pedestrian standards.  I've noticed that much of the previous signage tends to disappear once those corridors are refurbished by the accepting local authority.

Travelmapping users can sit back in their living rooms and watch their clinched road percentages slowly climb.

Can't say I blame TM users for taking advantage of not having to slog on urban surface State Highway.  A lot of these corridors weren't super interesting to begin with.

pderocco

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 21, 2024, 06:46:53 PM
Quote from: pderocco on October 21, 2024, 05:04:52 PMTravelmapping users can sit back in their living rooms and watch their clinched road percentages slowly climb.

Can't say I blame TM users for taking advantage of not having to slog on urban surface State Highway.  A lot of these corridors weren't super interesting to begin with.
I'll say. This past year, I clinched all the state highways in the Las Vegas area. That's about a day's worth of time I'll never get back.

roadfro

Quote from: pderocco on October 21, 2024, 11:27:08 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 21, 2024, 06:46:53 PM
Quote from: pderocco on October 21, 2024, 05:04:52 PMTravelmapping users can sit back in their living rooms and watch their clinched road percentages slowly climb.

Can't say I blame TM users for taking advantage of not having to slog on urban surface State Highway.  A lot of these corridors weren't super interesting to begin with.
I'll say. This past year, I clinched all the state highways in the Las Vegas area. That's about a day's worth of time I'll never get back.
Good you did it now, and not 5-10 years ago...would've taken you longer, as NDOT used to have more urban arterial mileage still on the books several years ago.
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

Max Rockatansky

I'm just surprised at how much they still maintain around Reno. 



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.