Former US 99 in Heber, Calexico and the Mexican Border

[Max Rockatansky]

Put together something for US 99 in Heber, Calexico and the Mexican Border:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/12/former-us-route-99-through-heber-and.html

Some items of interest:

-  LRN 26 was extended from El Centro to the Mexican Border in Calexico on August 14th, 1931.
-  California applied for an extension of US 99 from El Centro to the Mexican Border on September 8th, 1931.  The alignment being applied for through Heber is stated to be temporary until a bypass route could be constructed.  This bypass was eventually constructed during the mid-1930s but never became US 99 and was assigned as an extension of CA 111 sometime between 1935-37.
-  The AASHO approved the extension of US 99 to the Mexican Border in Calexico on June 22nd, 1932
-  US 99 remained at the Mexican Border in Calexico until the AASHO approved the truncation to Los Angeles on June 19th, 1963.  US 99 always followed Imperial Avenue, 3rd Street and Heffernan Avenue in Calexico.  For some reason a historic US 99 END assembly was placed on 2nd Street just east of Imperial Highway this March despite it never being part of the highway. 

[usends]

That's an interesting point about US 99 using 3rd (not 2nd).  Today traffic heading southbound on Imperial cannot turn east on 3rd, so I assume that's why Historic 99 signage directs people to use 2nd instead.

[Max Rockatansky]

That's an interesting point about US 99 using 3rd (not 2nd).  Today traffic heading southbound on Imperial cannot turn east on 3rd, so I assume that's why Historic 99 signage directs people to use 2nd instead.

Notably US 66 has similar signage that doesn't really line up with an actual start point in Chicago.  I assumed this signage is going for a similar continuation effect given the impossible southbound movement now onto 3rd in Calexico.  Suffice to say a lot of historic alignments and end points simply are just something that can be replicated.

[michaelfballard]

Since you seem to be using both AARoads and your website to denigrate the Historic Highway 99 Association of California's work, I can no longer hold my tongue. You have done the same to the Ridge Route Preservation Organization as well, and it must cease. You have contributed nothing to either, done nothing positive for either, and only seem to want to work against those efforts. To what end, I have no idea but it must cease.

We REPLACED existing signage in Calexico in March 2021. We contacted the City of Calexico and have a good relationship with them. They want to include us in their future plans for downtown Calexico. We raised the funds for the signs through donations. Our website even states this. The signage was originally placed in 1995 by another person altogether different. The same person also helped get signage placed throughout the state. Are you going to criticize them as well? The border crossing was moved in 1974 not 1995. The current building may be from 1995, but the crossing moved two decades earlier. You cite historicaerials but only use USGS maps, which aren't updated frequently and do have errors from time to time. The aerial photos, also readily available on the same site, show the crossing moved by 1980, again long before 1995.

Considering your woefully inaccurate alignment maps of US 99 through the Santa Clarita Valley (showing it going over roadways built in the 2000's), it makes me question what else you might have wrong about 99. If you're going to continue to denigrate our work, expect pushback. What you are doing is rude and uncalled for.

[Max Rockatansky]

You got the alignment of US 99 wrong in Calexico and it required an explanation, how is that trashing your group?.  Really I'm indifferent to your endeavors (aside from fact checking) but it's pretty clear you think you are the only game in US 99.  Considering how you tried to railroad Gribblenation years ago for daring to do a blog on the Ridge Route you're one to talk regarding sabotage and making insinuations.  We've been around for several decades and you're just going to have to live with the fact we aren't going away.  If you don't like it I would suggest ripping from public documents in the CHPW and AASHTO database like we do.

Like I told you years ago, we could have settled this in a civil manner by email.  Instead you chose this route, too bad.

[cahwyguy]

<deep breath>
I was debating saying something sooner, as I like to believe that I have some level of friendship (or at least cordial relations) with both sides in this. So let me throw in my 2c.

I read what Michael does. Michael and I have been someone cooperating since he started up his sites for Santa Clarita back in the 90s, about the same time I started my site. I read what Tom does, because Tom takes a lot of time to do a level of map research and history that I don't have the time to do. Tom lets me summarize information from his sites with numerous link backs and credit; he does the same with my site. I'd say we were a company of thieves, but I think this is more of sharing amongst colleagues with a shared goal of increasing the knowledge of the highways of this great state.

I have never seen Tom say something negative about Michael's organizations. I don't believe he links to them directly, but that may be good, as I've had times where Michael has asked me not to link to him (and he has not provided reciprocal links back when I have).

This should not be about the people, people. I like to believe that all parties here are good folks. None of this is personal, nor should it be taken that way.

We should be focused on the facts and the history. There was a simple question of why the historical marker sign was on 2nd as the maps didn't show that as part of historic 99. Now, this could have been corrected by pointing to a map showing 2nd. Case closed. It was (I thought) corrected by noting that subsequent street changes (one-way streets) made it necessary to put the sign on second for one direction (and that's close enough for government work). This wasn't denegration; I'm not even sure Tom realized it was Michael who put up the sign (although I think I do mention that on my site).

The ranks of us who continue to do websites about highways are shrinking; we're being crowded out by the Wikipedia groups who haven't been there putting in the work. Let's not eat our own.
</deep breath>

[Max Rockatansky]

Daniel, if this stays up I'll reply more throughly when I get home.  Suffice to say I'm not looking for some sort of conflict nor am I trying to rip on someone else's work.  I did notice the signage for Calexico via a link on your site and another (which I'll keep out of this). 

Really, I'm cool with either resolving this conflict (like I wanted years ago) or us just the two parties moving on and doing our thing.  I don't see a problem with multiple sites hitting US 99, it certainly hasn't hurt US 66 over the years.

Edit:  Upon thinking it over, I don't think that I really need anything else to the above. 

[Scott5114]

Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co.

[jdbx]

As somebody who used to lurk on misc.transport.road 20-25 years ago, and who probably is one of the target "consumers" of <waves hands> all this road-related info and trivia, I simply want to say that this conflict is silly.  Mike Ballard's blogs and photos were some of the first and most interesting ones to get me into this hobby way back in the day, and I have utmost respect for the efforts being put into preserving US-99 and the Ridge Route.  I always read Daniel Faigin's updates, and use cahighways as a reference all the time.  I also follow Max / Gribblenation on social media and read every one of their blog updates.  That's in addition to all the other mtr/aaroads regulars with interesting blogs, historic photo galleries, etc in other regions.

At no point, as a consumer, did I ever read something on one of the above blogs and think it was an attack on another road hobbyist or anything like that.  We all have a near-insatiable desire to know as much as we can about our highways past, present, and future, and I think everybody involved brings something of value to the discussion and the advancement of our knowledge.

TLDR;  this is much ado about nothing.  We all have useful knowledge to share, and just because information may be contradictory, it really isn't personal.

[Alps]

Okay. I'm on my way back from the end of the world (and it feels like I'm heading into a metaphorical one). Read through all of this. Here's what we're gonna do:
* Everyone is entitled to their opinions.
* Since nothing was called out in this thread negatively, please do not introduce negativity and definitely not personal attacks.
* Mr. Rockatansky: I suggest not calling out people by name or website on your own pages if they got something wrong. Just write the correct answer and move on. I've noticed incorrect things on certain websites and decided to leave sleeping dogs lie. We're all a family here and that just introduces conflict.
* Mr. Ballard: A lot of people do not like how you have taken over the Ridge Route Preservation Organization and essentially become its dictator in terms of how people can get access to the Ridge Route. (I traveled it shortly before you became the head, so I cannot weigh in on this, but I am letting you know how people feel.) All I can say is that if you feel like a lot of people are disagreeing with you or "attacking" you (the latter of which did not happen here), they may feel like you caused it. Please don't reply to this - this is me passing along what I've heard, not how I myself feel and I have no interest in anything negative between us.
* Mr. Faigin: I appreciate that you are a neutral party in all of this. So...

Let's move on, shall we? Let's just talk about the road instead of each other. Thanks.

[theroadwayone]

Wow, this sure escalated quickly.