Regional Boards > Pacific Southwest

CA-77

(1/3) > >>

Quillz:
I'm trying to figure out why, in 2010, this route still exists legally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_185

The entire route is just .45 miles and until 2008 didn't have a single reassurance marker. And while a longer route is planned, it's been in the planning stage for a very long time, to the point that it likely won't even happen.

Thus, with the entire route being within CA-185, what's the point? (Along with the unsigned CA-61, another route that I don't understand.) Why not free up the 77 number and put it to good use elsewhere? There are plenty of roads left in the state that I feel could be signed as a state route. (EXAMPLE: If CA-99 becomes I-7, why not turn the current CA-7 into CA-77?)

Alps:

--- Quote from: Quillz on November 10, 2010, 12:22:44 AM ---Why not free up the 77 number and put it to good use elsewhere? There are plenty of roads left in the state that I feel could be signed as a state route. (EXAMPLE: If CA-99 becomes I-7, why not turn the current CA-7 into CA-77?)

--- End quote ---
Answer: Because then you'd be in the Fictional Highways thread.

agentsteel53:

--- Quote from: Quillz on November 10, 2010, 12:22:44 AM ---If CA-99 becomes I-7, why not turn the current CA-7 into CA-77?

--- End quote ---

because the current CA-7 is a mile-long spur, proudly connecting nothing to nowhere, that is an insult to the history of route 7 in California.  It needs to be numbered CA-292 or something equally obscure.

I thought I saw a CA-185 reassurance marker on Int'l Boulevard in 2006.  And no, I don't understand how CA-61, 77, and 185 interrelate - and throw 93 in there as well as a useless number.

Quillz:

--- Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 10, 2010, 12:26:54 AM ---
--- Quote from: Quillz on November 10, 2010, 12:22:44 AM ---If CA-99 becomes I-7, why not turn the current CA-7 into CA-77?

--- End quote ---

because the current CA-7 is a mile-long spur, proudly connecting nothing to nowhere, that is an insult to the history of route 7 in California.  It needs to be numbered CA-292 or something equally obscure.

I thought I saw a CA-185 reassurance marker on Int'l Boulevard in 2006.  And no, I don't understand how CA-61, 77, and 185 interrelate - and throw 93 in there as well as a useless number.

--- End quote ---
CA-93 is the unsigned Richmond Parkway, right? I can understand that existing in the sense that at least it's its own segment of highway. It doesn't exist wholly within another route the way CA-77 does, IIRC. But why it's not signed, I have no idea.

There are probably other examples in the state of numbers that are somewhat wasted due to being either unsigned concurrencies or just so short, why bother? But CA-77 has bugged me for a long time. Especially as it's a valuable 2-digit number that could be used elsewhere.

agentsteel53:
for another example of a completely useless concurrency, try 164 and 19.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page