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

Decomissonings that suprised you the most.

Started by dvferyance, August 04, 2018, 07:03:14 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

hbelkins

Quote from: Captain Jack on August 11, 2018, 12:01:45 PM
IMO, US 150 should have been decommissioned in both states, well before both 54 and 460. It straddles I-74 anywhere that it would have any relevancy, and multiplexes the rest of the way with more significant routes. No one from Terre Haute has ever said take 41-150 to Vincennes. It is strictly 41. And I am pretty certain no one there in the last 40-50 years has taken 150 to go to Peoria or Louisville.

Actually, I did last year. I was in the process of clinching 150 and needed the stretch between Danville and Paris to complete the route in all three states it traverses. Once I got to Paris, I was looking for the shortest and best route home. That involved IL 1, I-70, the new IN 641 (I wanted to check out the route since I was in the area), and then US 150 from south of Terre Haute to Louisville, including the concurrencies with US 41 and 50. I certainly didn't want to have to deal with Indianapolis. so that ruled out taking I-70 to either I-65 or I-74 (thus dealing with two cities, Indy and either Cincy or Louisville). Staying on 41 to I-64 was too far out of the way south. So US 150 it was. Louisville starts showing up as a destination where 50 and 150 split.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.


Laura

In Maryland we have the opposite problem: I'm more surprised that more decommissioning of minor state routes hasn't happened.

The one historic decommissioning that has always surprised me was with US 140 because it was only partially replaced by interstate with I-795 outside Baltimore. The annoying thing is that MD did not renumber their whole segment (from Baltimore to Westminster north through Union Mills to the line) as MD 140. They instead moved 140  from Baltimore to Westminster to Emmitsburg to the line and renumbered the portion North through Union Mills to the line as MD 97. PA renumbered their portion as PA 97 to match, causing there to be 2 route 97s in the state (the other is out near Erie).

roadman65

US 264 leading to Whalebone Jct. NC where it now ends where it used to begin concurrency with its parent.
US 206 in PA!  It was not even a mile thus making it a true child of what its supposed to be.

Speaking of US 206, NJ not downgrading its 3 in state US routes to state routes.  Even if US 46 was to become NJ 46 locals would not be confused at all as people from the Garden State call all designations "Route."  Even I-80 is called "Route 80" and US 22 is "Route 22." etc.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

The High Plains Traveler

I'm surprised at the wide scope of state route turnbacks/downloads/whatever in California. In Riverside County, I have been inconvenienced by the poor marking of the former routes of 111, 74, and 79. I guess I understand why cities might want to take control over a route through their territory, but the state obviously does not enforce the statutory requirement that the continuation of these routes be adequately marked. As an example, old CA-111 is simply marked by maintaining the street name "Highway 111" along the decommissioned portion through Palm Desert and surrounding cities.
"Tongue-tied and twisted; just an earth-bound misfit, I."

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on August 13, 2018, 05:47:58 PM
I'm surprised at the wide scope of state route turnbacks/downloads/whatever in California. In Riverside County, I have been inconvenienced by the poor marking of the former routes of 111, 74, and 79. I guess I understand why cities might want to take control over a route through their territory, but the state obviously does not enforce the statutory requirement that the continuation of these routes be adequately marked. As an example, old CA-111 is simply marked by maintaining the street name "Highway 111" along the decommissioned portion through Palm Desert and surrounding cities.

130 might be the grand champion of a relinquished Route not being signed when part of the agreement was for San Jose to do so.  Even worse Caltrans in their infinite wisdom decided to remove the BGS for 130 at the exit for Alum Rock Avenue along US 101.  At minimum at least Bakersfield seems to care about signing 178 through downtown still. 

sparker

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 13, 2018, 08:36:18 PM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on August 13, 2018, 05:47:58 PM
I'm surprised at the wide scope of state route turnbacks/downloads/whatever in California. In Riverside County, I have been inconvenienced by the poor marking of the former routes of 111, 74, and 79. I guess I understand why cities might want to take control over a route through their territory, but the state obviously does not enforce the statutory requirement that the continuation of these routes be adequately marked. As an example, old CA-111 is simply marked by maintaining the street name "Highway 111" along the decommissioned portion through Palm Desert and surrounding cities.

130 might be the grand champion of a relinquished Route not being signed when part of the agreement was for San Jose to do so.  Even worse Caltrans in their infinite wisdom decided to remove the BGS for 130 at the exit for Alum Rock Avenue along US 101.  At minimum at least Bakersfield seems to care about signing 178 through downtown still. 

Damn straight!  Functionally, CA 130 is an orphan -- essentially about 2/3 of Mt. Hamilton Road.  Once it hits Alum Rock Ave., it simply vanishes into thin air.  To say that the City of San Jose doesn't give a rat's ass about signed surface streets is an understatement -- the term would be more like "active ignorance"!  Even though there's about four blocks of The Alameda that's technically still signed CA 82 north of I-880 (it now legally terminates at that interchange), no one (Caltrans D4 or the city) can seem to be bothered to put up even one reassurance shield NB at the interchange or an "END 82" shield assembly SB -- and besides Mt. Hamilton Road, that's the sole remaining surface-street state highway within the city limits.  SJ's attitude is more or less "don't pay attention to it and it'll just go away" when it comes to state routes that aren't freeways.  And lack of signage is just the start -- it seems there's an ongoing effort to make traversal of the city by car as onerous as humanly possible.  The city is becoming famous/notorious for its many "road diets" (some actually work well) -- but other less obvious methods such as mis-timing signal sequences, prohibiting through movements at the periphery of some neighborhoods, and programming left turn signals to only function every other cycle, and their newest "toy": bolt-on speed bumps -- make it obvious that traffic calming does not entail driver calming!  They have yet to try ridiculously low speed limits; there's not enough cops in the city to make that tactic work.  Driving in this town every day makes me wonder just what they'll think of next!

kurumi

Quote
programming left turn signals to only function every other cycle

Any examples of this?

(In Cupertino, a "helpful" intersection at Stevens Creek and Saich Way accommodates EB left-turners twice per cycle if the pedestrian signal is triggered)
My first SF/horror short story collection is available: "Young Man, Open Your Winter Eye"

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: sparker on August 16, 2018, 05:05:22 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 13, 2018, 08:36:18 PM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on August 13, 2018, 05:47:58 PM
I'm surprised at the wide scope of state route turnbacks/downloads/whatever in California. In Riverside County, I have been inconvenienced by the poor marking of the former routes of 111, 74, and 79. I guess I understand why cities might want to take control over a route through their territory, but the state obviously does not enforce the statutory requirement that the continuation of these routes be adequately marked. As an example, old CA-111 is simply marked by maintaining the street name "Highway 111" along the decommissioned portion through Palm Desert and surrounding cities.

130 might be the grand champion of a relinquished Route not being signed when part of the agreement was for San Jose to do so.  Even worse Caltrans in their infinite wisdom decided to remove the BGS for 130 at the exit for Alum Rock Avenue along US 101.  At minimum at least Bakersfield seems to care about signing 178 through downtown still. 

Damn straight!  Functionally, CA 130 is an orphan -- essentially about 2/3 of Mt. Hamilton Road.  Once it hits Alum Rock Ave., it simply vanishes into thin air.  To say that the City of San Jose doesn't give a rat's ass about signed surface streets is an understatement -- the term would be more like "active ignorance"!  Even though there's about four blocks of The Alameda that's technically still signed CA 82 north of I-880 (it now legally terminates at that interchange), no one (Caltrans D4 or the city) can seem to be bothered to put up even one reassurance shield NB at the interchange or an "END 82" shield assembly SB -- and besides Mt. Hamilton Road, that's the sole remaining surface-street state highway within the city limits.  SJ's attitude is more or less "don't pay attention to it and it'll just go away" when it comes to state routes that aren't freeways.  And lack of signage is just the start -- it seems there's an ongoing effort to make traversal of the city by car as onerous as humanly possible.  The city is becoming famous/notorious for its many "road diets" (some actually work well) -- but other less obvious methods such as mis-timing signal sequences, prohibiting through movements at the periphery of some neighborhoods, and programming left turn signals to only function every other cycle, and their newest "toy": bolt-on speed bumps -- make it obvious that traffic calming does not entail driver calming!  They have yet to try ridiculously low speed limits; there's not enough cops in the city to make that tactic work.  Driving in this town every day makes me wonder just what they'll think of next!

The irony is that the mentality is definitely not shared with Santa Clara County which went out of it's way to sign CA 130 all the way east of Mount Hamilton to the Stanislaus County Line.  The real shame was those button-copy CA 130 BGSs on US 101, I'm glad that I grabbed some photos the month before they were removed:

130CAb by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

130CAa by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

sparker

Unfortunately, the disregard for signage definitely extends to Caltrans D4.  In Gilroy, WB CA 152 west of US 101 is largely unfollowable due to missing signs/shield assemblies on Monterey Road (old US 101) north of downtown, onto which CA 152 "jogs" for several blocks; the signposts are there, but there's absolutely no indication CA 152 turns west from SB Monterey onto First Street, which eventually becomes Hecker Pass Road over the hill to Watsonville.  I've talked to D4 about this, but get the "stock" reply:  they'll look into it -- but in the past 2 years nothing has been done.  Scuttlebutt has it that when and if CA 152 east from Gilroy is realigned to an expressway extending east from CA 25, CA 152 will be relocated to a southern extension of Santa Teresa Blvd., which is shown on planning maps as intersecting US 101 at or near the present CA 25 interchange; that'll take it around the southwest side of town past Gavilan College to Hecker Pass Road.  That'll make the convoluted double "L" present Gilroy alignment moot.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: sparker on August 16, 2018, 07:23:36 PM
Unfortunately, the disregard for signage definitely extends to Caltrans D4.  In Gilroy, WB CA 152 west of US 101 is largely unfollowable due to missing signs/shield assemblies on Monterey Road (old US 101) north of downtown, onto which CA 152 "jogs" for several blocks; the signposts are there, but there's absolutely no indication CA 152 turns west from SB Monterey onto First Street, which eventually becomes Hecker Pass Road over the hill to Watsonville.  I've talked to D4 about this, but get the "stock" reply:  they'll look into it -- but in the past 2 years nothing has been done.  Scuttlebutt has it that when and if CA 152 east from Gilroy is realigned to an expressway extending east from CA 25, CA 152 will be relocated to a southern extension of Santa Teresa Blvd., which is shown on planning maps as intersecting US 101 at or near the present CA 25 interchange; that'll take it around the southwest side of town past Gavilan College to Hecker Pass Road.  That'll make the convoluted double "L" present Gilroy alignment moot.

What's the logic with routing 152 towards 25 West from Pacheco Pass?   The overwhelming majority of traffic uses 152 to get to/from San Jose.  Routing 152 that far south won't pull all that many vehicles of the current route given it swings a pretty decent jog north of there. 

D4 probably has the worst signage in all of Caltrans.  109 and 114 kind of bother me not being signed as well.  109 has an odd legislative definition that has the route partially under the control East Palo Alto but yet still part of route somehow.  Really make take on it is that if a route is complete on the books it ought to be signed no matter who is responsible for maintenance.

On the flip side D6 seems be the gold standard for Caltrans signage these days.  To my
Knowledge Bakersfield even still signs the relinquished parts of 178 in downtown just like legislative definition says it should. 

TheStranger

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 16, 2018, 07:43:54 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 16, 2018, 07:23:36 PM
Unfortunately, the disregard for signage definitely extends to Caltrans D4.  In Gilroy, WB CA 152 west of US 101 is largely unfollowable due to missing signs/shield assemblies on Monterey Road (old US 101) north of downtown, onto which CA 152 "jogs" for several blocks; the signposts are there, but there's absolutely no indication CA 152 turns west from SB Monterey onto First Street, which eventually becomes Hecker Pass Road over the hill to Watsonville.  I've talked to D4 about this, but get the "stock" reply:  they'll look into it -- but in the past 2 years nothing has been done.  Scuttlebutt has it that when and if CA 152 east from Gilroy is realigned to an expressway extending east from CA 25, CA 152 will be relocated to a southern extension of Santa Teresa Blvd., which is shown on planning maps as intersecting US 101 at or near the present CA 25 interchange; that'll take it around the southwest side of town past Gavilan College to Hecker Pass Road.  That'll make the convoluted double "L" present Gilroy alignment moot.

What's the logic with routing 152 towards 25 West from Pacheco Pass?   The overwhelming majority of traffic uses 152 to get to/from San Jose.  Routing 152 that far south won't pull all that many vehicles of the current route given it swings a pretty decent jog north of there. 

I think that is where there's available right of way for an expressway bypass of the 2-lane section near San Felipe Lake.  I recall there's been some preliminary maps there showing a planned new-terrain pathway from near the 152/San Felipe Road junction west towards Route 25.

From Cahighways.org:



Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 16, 2018, 07:43:54 PM
D4 probably has the worst signage in all of Caltrans.  109 and 114 kind of bother me not being signed as well.  109 has an odd legislative definition that has the route partially under the control East Palo Alto but yet still part of route somehow.  Really make take on it is that if a route is complete on the books it ought to be signed no matter who is responsible for maintenance.

In full agreement with your assertion there.

My pick for most egregiously poor signage (due to a decommissioning!) is Route 1 in Oxnard; after Rice Avenue was upgraded and the downtown Oxnard section decommissioned...Route 1 signage did not appear at all on Rice Avenue itself or off US 101 for at least 2-3 years.  I haven't been down there since 2014 but Google Street View shows that the Rice Avenue exit off 101 is still not signed for Route 1:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.2235056,-119.1522501,3a,75y,129.32h,103.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sL5wLFXUR0dOjjY6V6PtvOA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 16, 2018, 07:43:54 PM
On the flip side D6 seems be the gold standard for Caltrans signage these days.  To my
Knowledge Bakersfield even still signs the relinquished parts of 178 in downtown just like legislative definition says it should. 

IIRC back in 2013 or so there were still shields for Route 91 along Artesia Boulevard west of the Harbor Freeway, as another example of this (in a different CalTrans district!).  I may have photographed a few back in the day, I don't know if any are up now.

Chris Sampang

dvferyance

Quote from: mgk920 on August 08, 2018, 10:02:54 AM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on August 07, 2018, 11:56:13 PM
Yeah what's the point of WI 127? It's literally just a lame bypass of WI 16 that goes through no towns or anywhere of importance.

WI 127 is the US 16 'old road' on that segment.  Yes, I'm a bit surprised that it wasn't turned over to Columbia County when the current US (now 'WI') 16 road was first built.

I was also a bit surprised when 'US 16' became 'WI 16' when I-90 was completed farther west, seeing as most of the interstate-supplanted US highways in Wisconsin retained their 'US' highway numbers (only US 141 south of Green Bay did not).  OTOH, had it stayed 'US 16', US 16 would have then had to have been combined with I-90 between just SW of Rochester, MN and Rapid City, SD.

Mike
Except for the part between Sioux Falls and Mitchell which is now SD-38 everything else would run with I-90. I do agree that US16 from Rapid City to Waukesha is one US highway I would bring back along with US89 from Flagstaff to Wicksburg. All other US decommissions made sense.

TEG24601

It was finding out that SR-99 (WA) was decommissioned from SR-599 to SR-518.  Like for what reason do you create a gap in not only a major route, but the secondary route to the International Airport, and a former US Route?


I will also say that the decommissioning of OR-99W through Portland makes no sense, isn't signed in any way, and there seems to be ongoing arguments between the city, county, and state over if the route exists, doesn't exist, or where it is/isn't routed through downtown, and if it is/isn't continued along Interstate Ave.



I will agree with anyone regarding the illogical decommissioning of any State Road or US Route in or near any city in Indiana.  Especially when the re-routing that is done uses roads that are far lower capacity than the previous routing (I'm looking at you Lafayette/West Lafayette)
They said take a left at the fork in the road.  I didn't think they literally meant a fork, until plain as day, there was a fork sticking out of the road at a junction.

paulthemapguy

Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on August 04, 2018, 08:23:19 PM
INDOT's decomissoning all of the state routes through Lafayette and West Lafayette surprised me the most!!  :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

INDOT's sheer dedication to minimizing their workload to cut costs never ceases to amaze me.  The state is really trying to accomplish as little as it can by minimizing its government as much as possible. 

So this is basically a blanket statement covering Indiana's decision to delete all state routes through Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, Lafayette, and other urbanized pieces of the state.
Avatar is the last interesting highway I clinched.
My website! http://www.paulacrossamerica.com Now featuring all of Ohio!
My USA Shield Gallery https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHwJRZk
TM Clinches https://bit.ly/2UwRs4O

National collection status: 361/425. Only 64 route markers remain

hotdogPi

Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 20, 2018, 02:45:44 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on August 04, 2018, 08:23:19 PM
INDOT's decomissoning all of the state routes through Lafayette and West Lafayette surprised me the most!!  :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

INDOT's sheer dedication to minimizing their workload to cut costs never ceases to amaze me.  The state is really trying to accomplish as little as it can by minimizing its government as much as possible. 

So this is basically a blanket statement covering Indiana's decision to delete all state routes through Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, Lafayette, and other urbanized pieces of the state.

That still doesn't explain US 30 not being where IN 930 is.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

sparker

Quote from: kurumi on August 16, 2018, 11:26:38 AM
Quote
programming left turn signals to only function every other cycle

Any examples of this?

(In Cupertino, a "helpful" intersection at Stevens Creek and Saich Way accommodates EB left-turners twice per cycle if the pedestrian signal is triggered)

Curtner Ave. and Meridian in San Jose (not too far from my home); this functions in off-peak hours only; it reverts to standard revolving-cycle (with double simultaneous lefts in both directions) from 5-10 a.m. and 3-7 p.m.  Also, for a while, some "secondary" signals on Branham Lane. between Camden and Monterey Road (generally local streets rather than the main arterials) were set up in this manner about a year ago; there must have been complaints, because they reverted to every-cycle this last spring.  This appears to be some sort of experimental program in SJ; I haven't had the opportunity to call the city transportation department to get any more information at this point (work issues are a bit pressing right now); will probably do so when I have the time.  It would be interesting to see if they're doing this anywhere else around the city (I generally "hang around" Willow Glen, Cambrian, and Almaden, where I notice things deployed locally).  I would suppose that this is part of their apparent attempt to institute general "traffic calming" by using this tactic to "meter out" traffic into the neighborhoods; for those intersections, the "2-cycle" arrangement, particularly on the previous Branham iteration, only affected the protected lefts from the arterial (there are none on crossing neighborhood streets such as Jarvis and Navarro).  As far as Curtner/Meridian is concerned, traffic on Curtner has certainly increased over the past few years; it's possible that the "2-cycle" method is simply there to diminish the effects on that traffic on intersecting arterials. 

paulthemapguy

Quote from: 1 on August 20, 2018, 02:49:40 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 20, 2018, 02:45:44 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on August 04, 2018, 08:23:19 PM
INDOT's decomissoning all of the state routes through Lafayette and West Lafayette surprised me the most!!  :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

INDOT's sheer dedication to minimizing their workload to cut costs never ceases to amaze me.  The state is really trying to accomplish as little as it can by minimizing its government as much as possible. 

So this is basically a blanket statement covering Indiana's decision to delete all state routes through Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, Lafayette, and other urbanized pieces of the state.

That still doesn't explain US 30 not being where IN 930 is.

Was literally waiting for some pedant to bring that up, so thanks for being that guy.
Avatar is the last interesting highway I clinched.
My website! http://www.paulacrossamerica.com Now featuring all of Ohio!
My USA Shield Gallery https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHwJRZk
TM Clinches https://bit.ly/2UwRs4O

National collection status: 361/425. Only 64 route markers remain

hotdogPi

Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 21, 2018, 08:33:13 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 20, 2018, 02:49:40 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 20, 2018, 02:45:44 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on August 04, 2018, 08:23:19 PM
INDOT's decomissoning all of the state routes through Lafayette and West Lafayette surprised me the most!!  :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

INDOT's sheer dedication to minimizing their workload to cut costs never ceases to amaze me.  The state is really trying to accomplish as little as it can by minimizing its government as much as possible. 

So this is basically a blanket statement covering Indiana's decision to delete all state routes through Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, Lafayette, and other urbanized pieces of the state.

That still doesn't explain US 30 not being where IN 930 is.

Was literally waiting for some pedant to bring that up, so thanks for being that guy.

Waiting? I replied in under 4 minutes.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

MNHighwayMan

Isn't being a pedant a requirement for being a roadgeek?

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on August 21, 2018, 09:20:19 PM
Isn't being a pedant a requirement for being a roadgeek?

That depends, not all of us are in the hobby for hunting down non-MUTCD complaint signs, being concerned of out of grid numberings or tracking down every last possible potential Interstate corridor.

MNHighwayMan

#95
I know this is a typo, but...

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 21, 2018, 09:23:31 PM
non-MUTCD complaint signs

...where can I buy these?

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on August 21, 2018, 09:27:20 PM
I know this is a typo, but...

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 21, 2018, 09:23:31 PM
non-MUTCD complaint signs

...where can I buy these?

Damn phone...ain't the best for proof reading.  :-D But, that said there are plenty of mutant signs out west here in California that don't even comply to state standards.  I have a whole bunch in my garage hanging up on the walls which doesn't amuse my fiancĂ©.

froggie

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 21, 2018, 09:23:31 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on August 21, 2018, 09:20:19 PM
Isn't being a pedant a requirement for being a roadgeek?

That depends, not all of us are in the hobby for hunting down non-MUTCD complaint signs, being concerned of out of grid numberings or tracking down every last possible potential Interstate corridor.

^ This.



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.