News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

CA-77

Started by Quillz, November 10, 2010, 12:22:44 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

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?)
Answer: Because then you'd be in the Fictional Highways thread.

agentsteel53

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

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.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

Quillz

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

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.
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.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

Quillz

Yeah, that's another good one. Another example of a route that only exists via a hidden concurrency.

I just wonder why CalTRANS continues to push for an extension (in this case, the CA-77 extension) that will probably never happen. (Much like the I-710 proposal.) When you've lobbied for something for decades and nothing has happened, just seems like it's time to give up and use the number elsewhere.

Alex

Andy and I photographed CA-77 in 2005. Someone nudge him to post those photos.  :biggrin:

kurumi

I remember seeing a CA 112 on Davis St eastbound in San Leandro at I-880; unfortunately, it's gone now, and I never got a photo.
My first SF/horror short story collection is available: "Young Man, Open Your Winter Eye"

Quillz

Quote from: kurumi on November 10, 2010, 11:45:22 AM
I remember seeing a CA 112 on Davis St eastbound in San Leandro at I-880; unfortunately, it's gone now, and I never got a photo.
I believe CA-109, CA-112 (or was it 114?) and CA-209 are all examples of routes that have been canceled for quite some time now but shields still exist on older signs. At least, the last time I was in the Bay Area, there were still CA-109 shields on US-101 guide signs even after the route was canceled.

TheStranger

Quote from: Quillz on November 10, 2010, 11:52:55 PM
Quote from: kurumi on November 10, 2010, 11:45:22 AM
I remember seeing a CA 112 on Davis St eastbound in San Leandro at I-880; unfortunately, it's gone now, and I never got a photo.
I believe CA-109, CA-112 (or was it 114?) and CA-209 are all examples of routes that have been canceled for quite some time now but shields still exist on older signs. At least, the last time I was in the Bay Area, there were still CA-109 shields on US-101 guide signs even after the route was canceled.

109 still exists but has not been signed on University (in East Palo Alto) as far as I know, I have never seen signage for it (but map mentions in the phonebook and in CSAA maps).

112 has always applied to the east-west Davis Street which is signed as part of Route 61.  114 however originally referred to 84 west of Willow Road, before becoming switched around (114 was for several years the official number for signed 84 along Willow between Bayfront Expressway and US 101; 84 now is signed for Bayfront so I think Willow is now unsigned state highway).

Keep in mind that it isn't Caltrans per se that creates route definitions, but the state legislature; route definitions have to be defined through the legislative process (including reversions to local maintenance).
Chris Sampang

cahwyguy

I'll just note that it was originally planned to be a much longer route. Take a look at http://www.cahighways.org/073-080.html#077 for the details. The route was originally defined in 1953 as LRN 253. From my page on LRN 253:

In 1953, Chapter 1787 defined LRN 233 as:

   1. High Street, Oakland, between [LRN 69] and [LRN 5]
   2. [LRN 227] near the intersection of Park Boulevard, Oakland to [LRN 75] near Lafayette

In 1957, Chapter 52 renumbered this definition as LRN 235.

In 1957, Chapter 1911 rewrote the definition of (a): "(a) A connection with [LRN 69] near 42d Avenue to a connection with [LRN 5] near High Street in Oakland"

In 1959, Chapter 1062 extended the route again by adding (c): "[LRN 75] near Lafayette to [LRN 75], described in Section 375(a), near Concord"
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.