Why Roadgeeks Should Be SME (Subj Matter Experts) for Legislators: Route 710

[cahwyguy]

As folks know, I'm working on the highway pages, with a goal of completing them by the end of November. I'm working on the legislative activity now, and unravelling the two bills that impacted Route 710: AB 29 and SB7. SB7 was chaptered later, and so takes precedence.

Now, also remember that the Streets and Highway Code is a bit convoluted. All the legislative route definitions are defined in Article 3. There is a separate definition for those portions of the state routes that are scenic highways, and more importantly, for those that are part of the freeway and expressway system. The Freeway and Expressway system is defined in Article 2.

For reference, this is the Article 3 definition of Route 710:

622.  Route 710 is from Route 1 to Route 210 in Pasadena.
(Added by Stats. 1984, Ch. 409, Sec. 68.)

622.1.  Route 710 shall also include that portion of the freeway between Route 1 and the northern end of Harbor Scenic Drive, that portion of Harbor Scenic Drive to Ocean Boulevard, that portion of Ocean Boulevard west of its intersection with Harbor Scenic Drive to its junction with Seaside Boulevard, and that portion of Seaside Boulevard from the junction with Ocean Boulevard to Route 47.
(Amended by Stats. 2013, Ch. 523, Sec. 16. (SB 788) Effective January 1, 2014.)

So, here's where SB7 screwed things up. The following is from SB 7:

SEC. 5. Section 253.9 is added to the Streets and Highways Code, to read:

253.9. (a) The California freeway and expressway system shall also include Route 710 from:
(1) Route 47 to Route 1.
(2) Route 1 near the City of Long Beach to Route 10 near the City of Alhambra.
(3) Route 10 near the City of Alhambra to Route 210 near the City of Pasadena.
(b) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2024, and as of that date is repealed.

SEC. 6. Section 253.9 is added to the Streets and Highways Code, to read:

253.9. (a) The California freeway and expressway system shall also include Route 710 from:
(1) Route 47 to Route 1.
(2) Route 1 near the City of Long Beach to Alhambra Avenue in the City of Los Angeles.
(3) California Boulevard in the City of Pasadena to Route 210.
(b) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2024.

SEC. 7. Section 622.3 is added to the Streets and Highways Code, to read:
622.3. (a) Upon a determination by the commission that it is in the best interest of the state to do so, the commission may, upon terms and conditions approved by it, relinquish to the City of Pasadena the portion of Route 710 within the jurisdictional limits of that city, if the department and the city enter into an agreement providing for that relinquishment.
(b) A relinquishment under this section shall become effective on the date following the county recorder's recordation of the relinquishment resolution containing the commission's approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment.
(c) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, all of the following shall occur:
(1) The relinquished portion of Route 710 shall cease to be a state highway.
(2) The relinquished portion of Route 710 shall be ineligible for future adoption under Section 81.
(3) The City of Pasadena shall ensure the continuity of traffic flow on the relinquished portion of Route 710.

Notice what is missing? Although the definition of the Freeway and Expressway system is modified, the actual definition of route is Article 3 is unmodified, and even after 2024, retains the gap. Further, the relinquishment portion, which does impact the Article 3 route definition, only applies in the City of Pasadena. Cities such as Alhambra, Los Angeles, and South Pasadena cannot relinquish built or unbuilt portions of the route (even though they are no longer in the freeway and expressway system). On the administrative side, it now jumps from 622.1 to 622.3; they forgot 622.2.

This is why roadgeeks need to be subject matter experts on staff: we would catch errors like this.

Oh, and in case you are thinking this still permits building the 710 gap completion, think again. Section 2 of the bill explicitly states:

SEC. 2. Section 54237.8 of the Government Code is amended to read:
54237.8. Notwithstanding any other law, for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), the preliminary project alternatives referred to as Alternative F-5, F-6, and F-7 in the December 2012 Alternative Analysis Report of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and any other freeway or tunnel alternatives to close the Interstate 710 North Gap shall no longer be deemed as feasible alternatives for consideration in any environmental review process for the Interstate 710 North Gap Closure project, State Clearinghouse number 1982092310.

So, if they wanted to work on completing the gap as some option not part of the freeway and expressway system, they would need to start the environmental review all over again.

Now to figure out how to work this all into my pages.

[Max Rockatansky]

Really the legislature could probably make a whole session out of changing route definitions for highways that will never be built. 

[ClassicHasClass]

Maybe it will distract them from the other stupid stuff.

[TheStranger]

I could talk about how having route numbering be entirely tied to legislative definitions is an inflexible system that really emphasizes semantics much more than practical navigation, but I think I've been saying that on here for over a decade, LOL.

The Rice Avenue situation in Oxnard (and really, Route 1 everywhere on the old US 101A/1934-1937 Route 3 stretch that is known as PCH today) highlights the absurdity of it well enough, but there are many others I can recognize just off the top of my head (Route 103 officially ending before the Terminal Island Freeway itself does, the gap in Route 90, the existence of two disconnected Route 16 corridors) without even thinking too hard.

[roadfro]

This seems like a good reason for not having routes be legislatively defined... Especially if the agency involved doesn't have input on how laws/codes regarding its routes are written.

One positive (and perhaps intentional) outcome of Nevada's 1976 state highway renumbering process was the removal of the state route definitions from the Nevada Revised Statutes.

[Max Rockatansky]

This seems like a good reason for not having routes be legislatively defined... Especially if the agency involved doesn't have input on how laws/codes regarding its routes are written.

One positive (and perhaps intentional) outcome of Nevada's 1976 state highway renumbering process was the removal of the state route definitions from the Nevada Revised Statutes.

My understanding was that before the 1964 Renumbering the Division of Highways had autonomy on where to sign highways.  That convention sure would go a long way to explain why the less important legislative routes didn't have a signed Highway on them and why routes would realign with greater frequency.  I'd almost think it would be simpler to go back how the system used to operate, but I'd highly doubt Caltrans as an agency would be interested in signed Route continuity compared to it's predecessor.   

[mrsman]

This seems like a good reason for not having routes be legislatively defined... Especially if the agency involved doesn't have input on how laws/codes regarding its routes are written.

One positive (and perhaps intentional) outcome of Nevada's 1976 state highway renumbering process was the removal of the state route definitions from the Nevada Revised Statutes.

My understanding was that before the 1964 Renumbering the Division of Highways had autonomy on where to sign highways.  That convention sure would go a long way to explain why the less important legislative routes didn't have a signed Highway on them and why routes would realign with greater frequency.  I'd almost think it would be simpler to go back how the system used to operate, but I'd highly doubt Caltrans as an agency would be interested in signed Route continuity compared to it's predecessor.

i'd say go back to earlier history.  If Caltrans won't do appropriate signing, maybe CSAA and ACSC can be contractors to sign route continuities as part of a "good roads" movement to help the traveling public.  Just like we see historic signs of US 66 and US 99 that don't infer state maintenace, these signs are just route guidance without an indication of state maintenance.

[Max Rockatansky]

This seems like a good reason for not having routes be legislatively defined... Especially if the agency involved doesn't have input on how laws/codes regarding its routes are written.

One positive (and perhaps intentional) outcome of Nevada's 1976 state highway renumbering process was the removal of the state route definitions from the Nevada Revised Statutes.

My understanding was that before the 1964 Renumbering the Division of Highways had autonomy on where to sign highways.  That convention sure would go a long way to explain why the less important legislative routes didn't have a signed Highway on them and why routes would realign with greater frequency.  I'd almost think it would be simpler to go back how the system used to operate, but I'd highly doubt Caltrans as an agency would be interested in signed Route continuity compared to it's predecessor.

i'd say go back to earlier history.  If Caltrans won't do appropriate signing, maybe CSAA and ACSC can be contractors to sign route continuities as part of a "good roads" movement to help the traveling public.  Just like we see historic signs of US 66 and US 99 that don't infer state maintenace, these signs are just route guidance without an indication of state maintenance.

Likewise some of the early Sign State Routes weren't exclusively on State Maintained roadways.  The biggest snag with that idea is that I doubt the Auto Clubs hold anywhere the clout they once did back in the Auto Trail era through WWII.  Without the Auto Clubs pumping their own money into public signage projects the only other "interested"  party probably is just Caltrans.  Having local agencies maintain lettered County Routes or State Highway through relinquishment largely has been a failure long term. 

[NE2]

I don't see the problem. Caltrans can relinquish the constructed portion in Pasadena (California Boulevard to I-210, though apparently not Columbia Street to California Boulevard). They don't need legislative approval to "relinquish" the portion outside Pasadena between Alhambra Avenue (are there plans to extend it from Valley Boulevard, or is that an actual fuckup?) and Columbia Street, since it hasn't been constructed. Perhaps it should have been removed from the definition, but it wasn't necessary to make the other changes.

[cahwyguy]

The point was more that leaving it in the state highway route definition (Article 3) means that it could come back, although it would require a new route, and a new EIR. But it could come back as just a surface street routing. Nothing precluded that -- it is only removed as freeway. If the legislators really wanted to remove the "gap", they should have redefined Route 710 to end at I-10, or end at Valley Blvd, with a second segment from California to I-210. But they didn't.

We would have caught that. They didn't. I'm going through all these CTC minutes, and finding all sorts of errors in reference -- Interstate 395 or Interstate 101 anyone? Hell, I could take care of both their highway AND cybersecurity needs. I speak both the highway code and NIST SP 800-53/800-37!

[Not that I plan to leave my current employer. Too close to retirement.]

[NE2]

But maybe they wanted to change as little as possible, seeing no reason to remove the possibility of a surface alignment.

[Max Rockatansky]

But maybe they wanted to change as little as possible, seeing no reason to remove the possibility of a surface alignment.

As much as I'd like to think that is true Caltrans hasn't been very agreeable on the concept of urban surface highways in the last could decades.  I couldn't fathom they would be interested in a surface CA 710. 

[Plutonic Panda]

It is still a shame they didn't build this tunnel. More importantly than having road geeks be SMEs for things like this the state should emphasize regional and statewide interest over uber local ones. In this case more people would have used this freeway segment  a week than the entire populations of many communities that were in opposition.

Many arguments made against it were just flat out baloney like the vibrations damaging historic structures. Yet somehow cities all across the world with much older buildings can do it.

Then the argument of CA needing to improve its mass transit and active transportation situation(which it does) is used against this project as if it has to be a zero sum equation here. This is just embarrassing on California's part.

[NE2]

OK boomer.

[Plutonic Panda]

OK boomer.

I am a millennial. I get your modus operandi here is 2 percent legitimate posting 98 percent sarcasm/trolling when you are unable to articulate or contribute anything of value but at least try when being a smart Alec.

[cahwyguy]

It is still a shame they didn't build this tunnel. More importantly than having road geeks be SMEs for things like this the state should emphasize regional and statewide interest over uber local ones. In this case more people would have used this freeway segment  a week than the entire populations of many communities that were in opposition.

Unfortunately, the language often used to justify highways has a very abusive tone to it -- lie back, grit your teeth, and take it for the greater good. That was a notion that was more acceptable in the 1950s and 1960s, during the heyday of highway construction (and it was a more acceptable notion in larger society as well, where those less privileged had all sorts of ... indignities ... forced upon them, just as non-privileged neighborhoods had other indignities force upon them. Just ask communities such as Boyle Heights and South Central LA).

Today, the notions are partnership and respect (both in highway building and in society). Highways can't destroy a community for the greater good.

The original plans for completion of the route between Alhambra and Pasadena had fatal flaws from the start: they were drawn on a map to connect two points because they looked good, and the stubs were built before the right of way for the connections between them were built. The stubs couldn't be moved, forcing route choices.  Had different stub points been chosen, and if they hadn't drawn a map to go through more privileged communities, perhaps there would have been a freeway.

But that boat has long sailed. This bill is the death of that freeway option: the route is removed from the freeway and expressway system, and those options are explicitly non-viable. The tunnel option was never realistic anyway: a tunnel of that length would have been far too expensive, have construction problems, and be an accident just waiting to happen when there was a car fire in the tunnel or some idiot drove a truck through.

But this has veered far from the original subject, which was legislators writing bills about the highway system without good input. This bill only changed the freeway and expressway system -- it didn't change the definition of the route. I've seen others where they forget past relinquishments, or have multiple naming resolutions impacting the same stretch, or incorrectly cite highways. They need subject matter experts to get the bills right -- it is clear that whomever they are consulting isn't up to the job.

[Plutonic Panda]

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not suggested we plow through communities like the early days of freeway building. Heck, I'm not even suggesting we build this tunnel right now. I'd like to see infrastructure reform reduce costs of these projects as much as possible. The United States doesn't need to have the highest cost of building infrastructure anywhere in the world.

Furthermore I don't buy the arguments about trucks or car fires. Other cities and counties have longer tunnels and somehow they manage these sorts of things. They can build a tunnel that supports truck traffic– we've been to the moon for crying out loud and somehow we can build a tunnel that would allow semi trucks to drive through it!!

[skluth]

Furthermore I don't buy the arguments about trucks or car fires. Other cities and counties have longer tunnels and somehow they manage these sorts of things. They can build a tunnel that supports truck traffic– we've been to the moon for crying out loud and somehow we can build a tunnel that would allow semi trucks to drive through it!!

I lived in Hampton Roads for four years. You couldn't get to most places without going through a tunnel. The biggest problem was semi trucks exceeding the lower-than-standard HRBT height limit and damaging the tunnel roof. The other big problem was idiots breaking down in the tunnel, often because they ran out of gas. The tunnels were the bottleneck in Tidewater, so traffic always moved once you reached the tunnels and as you left. It could easily take a half hour to drive the last half mile to a tunnel entrance. I've never heard of a fire in a tunnel there, though there was a bad one in the Mount Blanc Tunnel years ago. Tunnels can also flood like the Midtown Tunnel did during Hurricane Isabel, but I doubt a hurricane would flood an I-710 tunnel to Pasadena.

[TheStranger]

Echoing an earlier thought I had here:

While other states do have legislative-based numbering systems, this highlights the bloat of time and effort required to analyse what a route is, something that roadgeeks are way more interested in than the people in the legislature who actually have the responsibility to determine these routings.

Is there any real reason that route numbering should be so tied to "Caltrans maintains this road", other than that it is a vestige of the LRN era and the 1964 renumbering?  The "TO 1" stuff in Santa Monica is somehow better signed than...actual state-maintained routes in some place, i.e. Route 18 east of Route 138 and west of US 395. 

I know there's the GPS argument of "route numbers won't be used as much if everyone simply follows online mapping services" but those same online mapping services...point to numbers.

I'm realistic though - looking at how glacial the progress is for Route 1 signage on Rice Avenue in Oxnard, it almost doesn't matter what any of us think or want, either way; the current status quo of route signage (especially the "replace in kind" stuff that has kept freeway names in circulation in metro Los Angeles) and legislative-based route numbering seems to be here for the long haul.

[cahwyguy]

I'm realistic though - looking at how glacial the progress is for Route 1 signage on Rice Avenue in Oxnard, it almost doesn't matter what any of us think or want, either way; the current status quo of route signage (especially the "replace in kind" stuff that has kept freeway names in circulation in metro Los Angeles) and legislative-based route numbering seems to be here for the long haul.

With respect to this: If you look through my highway page change post ( https://cahighways.org/wordpress/?p=15628 ), you'll finding in the review of the CTC items a number related to the rail overcrossing at Rice (Route 34 at that point), which I seem to recall was related to the Route 1 signage.

Daniel

[TheStranger]

I'm realistic though - looking at how glacial the progress is for Route 1 signage on Rice Avenue in Oxnard, it almost doesn't matter what any of us think or want, either way; the current status quo of route signage (especially the "replace in kind" stuff that has kept freeway names in circulation in metro Los Angeles) and legislative-based route numbering seems to be here for the long haul.

With respect to this: If you look through my highway page change post ( https://cahighways.org/wordpress/?p=15628 ), you'll finding in the review of the CTC items a number related to the rail overcrossing at Rice (Route 34 at that point), which I seem to recall was related to the Route 1 signage.

Daniel

This reminded me of the main thread regarding the Rice project here:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6208.msg2455836#new

By the time the overpass is complete, the 1 signage gap between Oxnard Boulevard and US 101 will have been in place for about 11-12 years!  (The original post in that thread noted the designation change was supposed to happen in...2009.)

[oscar]

looking at how glacial the progress is for Route 1 signage on Rice Avenue in Oxnard

That is an unfair comparison. Some glaciers move faster.

[The Ghostbuster]

How does this affect the two 710 stubs at both ends? Does this give them the green light to demolish both stubs, which I predict is the mostly likely course that will be taken from here?

[cahwyguy]

How does this affect the two 710 stubs at both ends? Does this give them the green light to demolish both stubs, which I predict is the mostly likely course that will be taken from here?

The legislation covered a number of areas. Here's the full legislative analyst summary:

(1) Existing law establishes priorities and procedures that any state agency disposing of surplus residential property is required to follow. Under existing law, specified single-family residences must first be offered to their former owners or present occupants, as specified. Existing law also gives tenants in good standing of nonresidential properties priority to purchase, at fair market value, the property they rent, lease, or otherwise legally occupy.
This bill would require a state agency to give priority to a tenant in good standing of a nonresidential property to purchase, at the lesser of fair market value or value in use, as defined, if the tenant is a city or a nonprofit organization, as specified. The bill would prohibit the Department of Transportation from selling a nonresidential property to a tenant described above at a value below the minimum sales price, as defined in the department's Affordable Sales Program as of July 1, 2019. The bill would require the selling agency, if a nonresidential property is offered at a price that is less than fair market value, to impose appropriate terms, conditions, and restrictions.

(2) Existing law provides, notwithstanding any other law, for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, that the preliminary project alternative referred to as Alternative F-6 in the December 2012 Alternative Analysis Report of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority is no longer deemed to be a feasible alternative for consideration in any state environmental review process for the Interstate 710 North Gap Closure project.

This bill would revise this provision to instead provide that the preliminary project alternatives referred to as Alternative F-5, F-6, and F-7 in the December 2012 Alternative Analysis Report of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and any other freeway or tunnel alternatives to close the Interstate 710 North Gap are no longer deemed to be feasible alternatives for consideration in any environmental review process for the Interstate 710 North Gap Closure project.

(3) Existing law prohibits the Department of Transportation, until January 1, 2020, from increasing the rent of tenants who reside in surplus residential property located within the State Route 710 corridor in the County of Los Angeles and who participate in the Affordable Rent Program administered by the department.

This bill would make this prohibition permanent and would also provide that signatories of active rental agreements for residential property entered into with the department as of July 1, 2019, and continuously residing at the property since that date, may be eligible to participate in the department's Affordable Rent Program.

(4) Existing law vests the Department of Transportation with full possession and control of all state highways and associated property. Existing law designates and describes state highway routes, and also describes the state highway routes in the California freeway and expressway system, including all of State Highway Route 710 in the County of Los Angeles.

This bill would, on January 1, 2024, remove from the California freeway and expressway system the portion of Route 710 between Alhambra Avenue in the City of Los Angeles and California Boulevard in the City of Pasadena.

(5) Existing law establishes a process for the California Transportation Commission to adopt a highway on an authorized route, requires the commission to relinquish to local agencies state highway portions that have been deleted from the state highway system by legislative enactment, and authorizes relinquishment in certain other cases.

This bill would authorize the commission to relinquish to the City of Pasadena the specified portions of Route 710 within its city limits, upon terms and conditions the commission finds to be in the best interests of the state, if the department and the city enter into an agreement providing for that relinquishment.

===========================

The stubs can't be demolished until they are relinquished by the state. This only gives relinquishment authority for the northern stub, as Pasadena has plans. So once it is relinquished to the city, they can do with it what they want. Presumably, before that happens, Caltrans would close it down: modify the interchange to force SB traffic on the 210 onto either the 134 or 210; and only allow NB for the closest onramp, getting rid of the rest of the stub.

But as for the southern stub: there is no relinquishment, and it isn't removed from the F&E system. So absent new legislation, it likely stays until Alhambra figures out what it wants to do.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
Full removal of either stub would affect the adjacent system interchanges (I-10/San Bernardino Freeway to the south and I-210/CA 134 to the north), particularly the northern one, where the N-S segue from westward 210 leads directly to the trenched stub; the cost of revising the present arrangement would verge on the prohibitive.  As for the south stub; it's essentially a surface connector that functions as part of the local de facto commute path from both I-710 and I-10; it's doubtful that any modification save an extension over the UP tracks to Alhambra Ave. (for the purposes of traffic distribution/dissipation) -- a concept which has been periodically proposed without any substantive follow-up.   Since there's nothing along the stub, a "boulevarding" concept is functionally moot -- unless the extension mentioned above materializes, at which point the whole shooting match might "morph" into a boulevard (the city of Alhambra would love that idea, since they could derive revenue from businesses along the facility).