Regional Boards > Pacific Southwest

California

<< < (2/279) > >>

TheStranger:

--- Quote from: Quillz on July 20, 2016, 04:16:18 PM ---And again, while I can't say I've been to every state, I will say that nearly every other state I have been to seems to have routes that are very clearly signed, no matter who maintains them. In California, once a route gets relinquished, it may as well not exist anymore from a navigation standpoint.

--- End quote ---

Prior to the 1950s, the California State Automobile Association and the Automobile Club of Southern California signed the routes.  I wonder if they were the ones that determined the signed routings (as the routings the state was using at the time were the LRNs and not anything in the field) over the years, particularly in urban areas.

I've always felt that route numbering should be a navigational aid that a state DOT can determine (with input from local jurisdictions) regardless of route maintenance, but California has had some legislative form of numbering for a century with no sign of abandoning that system anytime soon.

Max Rockatansky:

--- Quote from: TheStranger on July 20, 2016, 04:31:06 PM ---
--- Quote from: Quillz on July 20, 2016, 04:16:18 PM ---And again, while I can't say I've been to every state, I will say that nearly every other state I have been to seems to have routes that are very clearly signed, no matter who maintains them. In California, once a route gets relinquished, it may as well not exist anymore from a navigation standpoint.

--- End quote ---

Prior to the 1950s, the California State Automobile Association and the Automobile Club of Southern California signed the routes.  I wonder if they were the ones that determined the signed routings (as the routings the state was using at the time were the LRNs and not anything in the field) over the years, particularly in urban areas.

I've always felt that route numbering should be a navigational aid that a state DOT can determine (with input from local jurisdictions) regardless of route maintenance, but California has had some legislative form of numbering for a century with no sign of abandoning that system anytime soon.

--- End quote ---

That's probably an easier fix than presented with the current reality of relinquishment.  Why not just throw a county route sign up with a route number identical to the state route?  Seems to work just fine for states like Florida and there is a current example of the practice in California with CA 59 and J59.  Now I could be talking just out of my ass but I'm running under the assumption that it would be FAR easier to mount county route signage for continuity rather than having to go through the wriggamoral of the legislature.


--- Quote from: Quillz on July 20, 2016, 04:16:18 PM ---
--- Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 20, 2016, 10:06:13 AM ---
--- Quote from: Quillz on July 20, 2016, 12:55:19 AM ---I have finally accepted that CA-39 will never again connect to CA-2, and therefore I will never be able to say I have clinched it.

--- End quote ---

You probably could do it on a bike or maybe running?  I've done both on the disconnected segment of the Ridge Route.  Would be a pretty conventional way of route clinching. 

I'm actually surprised an article like this came out in the current climate here in California...highway talk has become passe to say the least.

--- End quote ---
I suppose I could, but I still would love to say I've driven it. But granted, I guess no one has been able to since 1978, so it's not like I'm alone here.

I guess in general, I'm not a particular big fan of what would seem to be Caltrans' apathetical attitude towards their highways. Seems more often than not, they just want to abandon them, rather than fix them. That's certainly the correct choice economically, but as a roadgeek, really bothers me. And again, while I can't say I've been to every state, I will say that nearly every other state I have been to seems to have routes that are very clearly signed, no matter who maintains them. In California, once a route gets relinquished, it may as well not exist anymore from a navigation standpoint.

--- End quote ---

True....but it's not the only route like, CA 173 was similarly abandoned but it doesn't get as noticed much because it was a dirt highway.  I guess that's what I don't understand...the apathy to me just seems like legislative laziness.  I've been here for five years and worked here for another three with contract works....so there is a ton of practices in California that, at least for me seem don't seem excusable...roads being the primary one.  I guess it sort of reminds me of how bad things really got in Michigan with road maintenance and how it led to things like an entire direction of an Interstate Highway being shut down for months for repairs.  It just feels like the whole state has stagnated with all public works projects in general and there is little willpower to do anything unless something breaks.  But then again something like high speed rail somehow gets traction with all this existing infrastructure...interesting how that happens.  But then again I didn't grow up here and I'm comparing it to places that are going through population booms Texas, Arizona and Florida.  Even still, it's interesting how far places like Michigan and California have really fallen when they were once considered paragons of automotive infrastructure.

I don't know, I look at the neighboring states and with the exception of Oregon (talk about apathy for anything automotive or anything above 35 MPH) there seems to be a lot more great deal of care for highways which would include route signage.  Nevada did a renumbering in the not too distant past and Arizona is pushing to build or improve things all the time.  California probably has some of the worst signage just in general anywhere in the country...route signage is just part of it.  There are places you will literally have no clue how fast the speed limit is, it's really strange how few signs there are in general here. 

ACSCmapcollector:

--- Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 20, 2016, 06:46:32 PM ---
--- Quote from: TheStranger on July 20, 2016, 04:31:06 PM ---
--- Quote from: Quillz on July 20, 2016, 04:16:18 PM ---
And again, while I can't say I've been to every state, I will say that nearly every other state I have been to seems to have routes that are very clearly signed, no matter who
maintains them. In California, once a route gets relinquished, it may as well not exist anymore from a navigation standpoint.

--- End quote ---

Prior to the 1950s, the California State Automobile Association and the Automobile Club of Southern California signed the routes.  I wonder if they were the ones that determined the signed routings (as the routings the state was using at the time were the LRNs and not anything in the field) over the years, particularly in urban areas.

I've always felt that route numbering should be a navigational aid that a state DOT can determine (with input from local jurisdictions) regardless of route maintenance, but California has had some legislative form of numbering for a century with no sign of abandoning that system anytime soon.

--- End quote ---

That's probably an easier fix than presented with the current reality of relinquishment.  Why not just throw a county route sign up with a route number identical to the state route?  Seems to work just fine for states like Florida and there is a current example of the practice in California with CA 59 and J59.  Now I could be talking just out of my ass but I'm running under the assumption that it would be FAR easier to mount county route signage for continuity rather than having to go through the wriggamoral of the legislature.


--- Quote from: Quillz on July 20, 2016, 04:16:18 PM ---
--- Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 20, 2016, 10:06:13 AM ---
--- Quote from: Quillz on July 20, 2016, 12:55:19 AM ---I have finally accepted that CA-39 will never again connect to CA-2, and therefore I will never be able to say I have clinched it.

--- End quote ---

You probably could do it on a bike or maybe running?  I've done both on the disconnected segment of the Ridge Route.  Would be a pretty conventional way of route clinching. 

I'm actually surprised an article like this came out in the current climate here in California...highway talk has become passe to say the least.

--- End quote ---
I suppose I could, but I still would love to say I've driven it. But granted, I guess no one has been able to since 1978, so it's not like I'm alone here.

I guess in general, I'm not a particular big fan of what would seem to be Caltrans' apathetical attitude towards their highways. Seems more often than not, they just want to abandon them, rather than fix them. That's certainly the correct choice economically, but as a roadgeek, really bothers me. And again, while I can't say I've been to every state, I will say that nearly every other state I have been to seems to have routes that are very clearly signed, no matter who maintains them. In California, once a route gets relinquished, it may as well not exist anymore from a navigation standpoint.

--- End quote ---

True....but it's not the only route like, CA 173 was similarly abandoned but it doesn't get as noticed much because it was a dirt highway.  I guess that's what I don't understand...the apathy to me just seems like legislative laziness.  I've been here for five years and worked here for another three with contract works....so there is a ton of practices in California that, at least for me seem don't seem excusable...roads being the primary one.  I guess it sort of reminds me of how bad things really got in Michigan with road maintenance and how it led to things like an entire direction of an Interstate Highway being shut down for months for repairs.  It just feels like the whole state has stagnated with all public works projects in general and there is little willpower to do anything unless something breaks.  But then again something like high speed rail somehow gets traction with all this existing infrastructure...interesting how that happens.  But then again I didn't grow up here and I'm comparing it to places that are going through population booms Texas, Arizona and Florida.  Even still, it's interesting how far places like Michigan and California have really fallen when they were once considered paragons of automotive infrastructure.

I don't know, I look at the neighboring states and with the exception of Oregon (talk about apathy for anything automotive or anything above 35 MPH) there seems to be a lot more great deal of care for highways which would include route signage.  Nevada did a renumbering in the not too distant past and Arizona is pushing to build or improve things all the time.  California probably has some of the worst signage just in general anywhere in the country...route signage is just part of it.  There are places you will literally have no clue how fast the speed limit is, it's really strange how few signs there are in general here. 



--- End quote ---

That is one of the reasons why the remaining segment of California state route 65 hasn't been built.  However I am sure there need to upgrade what does exist in our own state of California, what Governor Brown is proposing.  We are lagging behind Arizona and Texas for the best highways, when California's conditions of our highways are poor.

cahwyguy:
I think one thing people forget -- especially people on the east coast -- is how big this state is. Driving I-5, from the southern to the northern border, without traffic, is at least a 10-12 hour drive (I know we did LA to Berkeley in about 5 hours). Going E - W is still about 4 hours, longer if you are crossing the Sierras or the deserts. That's a lot of road miles to maintain, many in areas that are expensive to maintain. Our maintenance workers and dollars are stretched to their limits.

Max Rockatansky:

--- Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on July 20, 2016, 07:59:47 PM ---
--- Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 20, 2016, 06:46:32 PM ---
--- Quote from: TheStranger on July 20, 2016, 04:31:06 PM ---
--- Quote from: Quillz on July 20, 2016, 04:16:18 PM ---
And again, while I can't say I've been to every state, I will say that nearly every other state I have been to seems to have routes that are very clearly signed, no matter who
maintains them. In California, once a route gets relinquished, it may as well not exist anymore from a navigation standpoint.

--- End quote ---

Prior to the 1950s, the California State Automobile Association and the Automobile Club of Southern California signed the routes.  I wonder if they were the ones that determined the signed routings (as the routings the state was using at the time were the LRNs and not anything in the field) over the years, particularly in urban areas.

I've always felt that route numbering should be a navigational aid that a state DOT can determine (with input from local jurisdictions) regardless of route maintenance, but California has had some legislative form of numbering for a century with no sign of abandoning that system anytime soon.

--- End quote ---

That's probably an easier fix than presented with the current reality of relinquishment.  Why not just throw a county route sign up with a route number identical to the state route?  Seems to work just fine for states like Florida and there is a current example of the practice in California with CA 59 and J59.  Now I could be talking just out of my ass but I'm running under the assumption that it would be FAR easier to mount county route signage for continuity rather than having to go through the wriggamoral of the legislature.


--- Quote from: Quillz on July 20, 2016, 04:16:18 PM ---
--- Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 20, 2016, 10:06:13 AM ---
--- Quote from: Quillz on July 20, 2016, 12:55:19 AM ---I have finally accepted that CA-39 will never again connect to CA-2, and therefore I will never be able to say I have clinched it.

--- End quote ---

You probably could do it on a bike or maybe running?  I've done both on the disconnected segment of the Ridge Route.  Would be a pretty conventional way of route clinching. 

I'm actually surprised an article like this came out in the current climate here in California...highway talk has become passe to say the least.

--- End quote ---
I suppose I could, but I still would love to say I've driven it. But granted, I guess no one has been able to since 1978, so it's not like I'm alone here.

I guess in general, I'm not a particular big fan of what would seem to be Caltrans' apathetical attitude towards their highways. Seems more often than not, they just want to abandon them, rather than fix them. That's certainly the correct choice economically, but as a roadgeek, really bothers me. And again, while I can't say I've been to every state, I will say that nearly every other state I have been to seems to have routes that are very clearly signed, no matter who maintains them. In California, once a route gets relinquished, it may as well not exist anymore from a navigation standpoint.

--- End quote ---

True....but it's not the only route like, CA 173 was similarly abandoned but it doesn't get as noticed much because it was a dirt highway.  I guess that's what I don't understand...the apathy to me just seems like legislative laziness.  I've been here for five years and worked here for another three with contract works....so there is a ton of practices in California that, at least for me seem don't seem excusable...roads being the primary one.  I guess it sort of reminds me of how bad things really got in Michigan with road maintenance and how it led to things like an entire direction of an Interstate Highway being shut down for months for repairs.  It just feels like the whole state has stagnated with all public works projects in general and there is little willpower to do anything unless something breaks.  But then again something like high speed rail somehow gets traction with all this existing infrastructure...interesting how that happens.  But then again I didn't grow up here and I'm comparing it to places that are going through population booms Texas, Arizona and Florida.  Even still, it's interesting how far places like Michigan and California have really fallen when they were once considered paragons of automotive infrastructure.

I don't know, I look at the neighboring states and with the exception of Oregon (talk about apathy for anything automotive or anything above 35 MPH) there seems to be a lot more great deal of care for highways which would include route signage.  Nevada did a renumbering in the not too distant past and Arizona is pushing to build or improve things all the time.  California probably has some of the worst signage just in general anywhere in the country...route signage is just part of it.  There are places you will literally have no clue how fast the speed limit is, it's really strange how few signs there are in general here. 



--- End quote ---

That is one of the reasons why the remaining segment of California state route 65 hasn't been built.  However I am sure there need to upgrade what does exist in our own state of California, what Governor Brown is proposing.  We are lagging behind Arizona and Texas for the best highways, when California's conditions of our highways are poor.

--- End quote ---

I'm mainly just talking maintaining/improving theroutes that exist, not building something new that would plow through some lying Sierra foothills that isn't needed.  Really the northern 65 ought to just be renumbered and call it a day.  There is a surplus already that could be used for more road maintenance funding, things are certainly way better at least economically than they were when there was all that talk about shuttering most of the state parks.  You already know my thoughts on a road usage tax....pretty hard to justify something like that with the income and gas taxes being as high as they are. 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version