AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules to ensure post quality. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: CA 187  (Read 727 times)

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 19391
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 09:43:53 AM
    • Gribblenation
CA 187
« on: May 01, 2022, 10:17:28 PM »

Put something together for CA 187:

"California State Route 187 is a five-mile State Highway aligned Venice Boulevard located almost entirely within the city of Los Angeles.  California State Route 187 begins at Interstate 10 Exit 7A and terminates at California State Route 1.  California State Route 187 contains a deleted segment which once also included what is now Moomat Ahiko Way as part of the grade separation of Colorado Avenue in Santa Monica near Santa Monica Pier."

https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/05/california-state-route-187.html

Notably CA 187 seemingly has been entirely deleted from the Caltrans Postmile Tool.  I would expect in the near future to see some sort of legislative deletion of CA 187.
Logged

M3100

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 297
  • Location: Los Angeles County, CA
  • Last Login: August 08, 2022, 10:27:37 PM
Re: CA 187
« Reply #1 on: May 21, 2022, 08:40:09 PM »

When I drove this route for the thread I posted, at the foot of the I-10 offramp there was a place where a shield "used to be" on one of the poles at the Culver Blvd. intersection.  There was a green "West" sign and a left-pointing arrow sign, but the 187 shield was gone.

I see now that this route has been deleted from the TravelMapping site; one more "clinched" route gone.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 19391
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 09:43:53 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 187
« Reply #2 on: May 21, 2022, 08:53:58 PM »

That might be jumping the gun from the perspective of Travel Mapping.  CA 187 is still legislatively defined and still has some signage in field.  None of 187 is ďstate maintainedĒ but for the moment it still technically exists until the legislature does something to change that.

Personally it never really has concerned me personally if a highway was active or not.  Pretty much anything that was a signed highway at some likely will draw some interest from me, especially if it can be replicated.  But thatís probably unsurprising to anyone who has seen how many old highway alignment blogs I do. 
« Last Edit: May 21, 2022, 08:56:18 PM by Max Rockatansky »
Logged

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9537
  • Age: 66
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:56:36 AM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: CA 187
« Reply #3 on: May 21, 2022, 09:23:22 PM »

That might be jumping the gun from the perspective of Travel Mapping.  CA 187 is still legislatively defined and still has some signage in field.  None of 187 is ďstate maintainedĒ but for the moment it still technically exists until the legislature does something to change that.

The legislature authorized relinquishment of the entire route, without any of the conditions (such as for continuation signage and traffic signal progression) typical for part-route relinquishments. The Postmile Query Tool confirms that, at long last, the relinquishment Caltrans agreed to several years ago has been carried out. That, as far as I am concerned (as TM's team member covering California routes), is enough to treat CA 187 as a former route, even if there is some remnant signage.

At some point, the legislature will probably delete route 187 from the Streets and Highways Code. I don't think we need to wait that long.
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 19391
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 09:43:53 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 187
« Reply #4 on: May 21, 2022, 09:29:45 PM »

That might be jumping the gun from the perspective of Travel Mapping.  CA 187 is still legislatively defined and still has some signage in field.  None of 187 is ďstate maintainedĒ but for the moment it still technically exists until the legislature does something to change that.

The legislature authorized relinquishment of the entire route, without any of the conditions (such as for continuation signage and traffic signal progression) typical for part-route relinquishments. The Postmile Query Tool confirms that, at long last, the relinquishment Caltrans agreed to several years ago has been carried out. That, as far as I am concerned (as TM's team member covering California routes), is enough to treat CA 187 as a former route, even if there is some remnant signage.

At some point, the legislature will probably delete route 187 from the Streets and Highways Code. I don't think we need to wait that long.

Whatís weird about the relinquishment agreement is that it went to the legislature first then the California Transportation Commission.  Usually itís done the opposite way and the routing is deleted by the legislature during the second step.  I wonder now given this hasnít been noticed in half a decade if this will be one of these lingering highway oddities that remains alive on paper.
Logged

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9537
  • Age: 66
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:56:36 AM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: CA 187
« Reply #5 on: May 22, 2022, 02:23:38 PM »

Whatís weird about the relinquishment agreement is that it went to the legislature first then the California Transportation Commission.  Usually itís done the opposite way and the routing is deleted by the legislature during the second step.  I wonder now given this hasnít been noticed in half a decade if this will be one of these lingering highway oddities that remains alive on paper.

Did the relinquishment agreement have to be approved by the legislature? My understanding of the process is that once the legislature authorizes relinquishment, it's up to Caltrans and the relevant local jurisdiction(s) to hammer out a relinquishment agreement, which takes effect once the agreement is implemented (including any conditions the county or city extracted from Caltrans) and recorded with the county Recorder of Deeds. See, for example, California Streets and Highways Code section 487. No further legislative involvement is needed, until the legislature later gets around to repealing or modifying the Streets and Highways Code to reflect the completed relinquishment.

There are also instances (like part of route 144 in Santa Barbara) where the legislature authorizes a relinquishment, but Caltrans and the local jurisdiction haven't agreed to terms. In that case, the authorization remains in the Streets and Highways Code, unless and until the legislature gives up and amends that code provision.
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 19391
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 09:43:53 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 187
« Reply #6 on: May 22, 2022, 02:43:50 PM »

Whatís weird about the relinquishment agreement is that it went to the legislature first then the California Transportation Commission.  Usually itís done the opposite way and the routing is deleted by the legislature during the second step.  I wonder now given this hasnít been noticed in half a decade if this will be one of these lingering highway oddities that remains alive on paper.

Did the relinquishment agreement have to be approved by the legislature? My understanding of the process is that once the legislature authorizes relinquishment, it's up to Caltrans and the relevant local jurisdiction(s) to hammer out a relinquishment agreement, which takes effect once the agreement is implemented (including any conditions the county or city extracted from Caltrans) and recorded with the county Recorder of Deeds. See, for example, California Streets and Highways Code section 487. No further legislative involvement is needed, until the legislature later gets around to repealing or modifying the Streets and Highways Code to reflect the completed relinquishment.

There are also instances (like part of route 144 in Santa Barbara) where the legislature authorizes a relinquishment, but Caltrans and the local jurisdiction haven't agreed to terms. In that case, the authorization remains in the Streets and Highways Code, unless and until the legislature gives up and amends that code provision.

Usually what Iím seeing in the legislative chapters Daniel cities on his page is usually some formal piece of legislation that formally deletes the highway definition.  Two examples from two different eras:

https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE214.html

https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE224.html

Then you get into weird modern things like 225 which actually never had a clear deletion and even had mileage active (an underpass) in the Postmile Tool until fairly recently:

https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE225.html

Essentially 187 seems to be following a similar pattern to 225 in that the entire route gets relinquished but there is never a follow up to delete the definition.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 19391
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 09:43:53 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 187
« Reply #7 on: May 22, 2022, 02:52:10 PM »

In theory subsection (2) ought to delete the definition of 187 but it seemingly isnít?  Maybe Daniel will see this and chime in regarding the definition of 187 as being active or not:

487. 
(a) Route 187 is from Lincoln Boulevard to Route 10 via Venice Boulevard.
(b) 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 Los Angeles Route 187 within the city between the routeís western terminus at Lincoln Boulevard (approximately postmile 3.5) and its eastern terminus at Cadillac Avenue near Route 10 (approximately postmile 8.9), if the department and the city enter into an agreement providing for that relinquishment. The following conditions shall apply upon relinquishment:
(1) The relinquishment shall become effective on the date following the county recorderís recordation of the relinquishment resolution containing the commissionís approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment.
(2) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, Route 187 shall cease to be a state highway.

(3) Route 187, as relinquished under this subdivision, shall be ineligible for future adoption under Section 81.
(Amended by Stats. 2015, Ch. 561, Sec. 2. (AB 810) Effective January 1, 2016.)
Logged

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9537
  • Age: 66
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:56:36 AM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: CA 187
« Reply #8 on: May 22, 2022, 03:02:36 PM »

^ The legislature could have authorized the automatic repeal of SHC section 487, but didn't do so for whatever reason. It only automatically removed CA 187 from the state highway system once the relinquishment was completed, and made that removal permanent.
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 19391
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 09:43:53 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 187
« Reply #9 on: May 22, 2022, 03:20:33 PM »

Whatís amusing is that the definition of 187 is so exactingly narrow that it couldnít possibly be interpreted as anything but Venice Boulevard:

(a) From Lincoln Boulevard to Route 10 via Venice Boulevard.

Given existing 187 was relinquished on Venice Boulevard it would take another piece of legislation to change the corridor in any way.  Given the corridor is relinquished and ineligible for adoption that essentially makes it a zombie definition that canít be ever acted on unless overtly altered.  I wonder if this why there is brand new SB1 era 187 signage from I-10?  I can just picture someone at Caltrans District 7 not paying much mind to a spec sheet and signing 187 anyways from I-10:

https://flic.kr/p/2mWeCFg

Where it gets more interesting is something like 225 which had similar relinquishment language to 187 but had a less exactingly defined routing.  In theory (like Daniel said on his page) an entire new route could be spawned from the two endpoints on 225 given it was never actually legislatively deleted.

Given how many zombie Route definitions are still legally defined I think it would be a safe bet that the legislature isnít going to pick up on any of this any time soon.  Looking into this deeper the current relinquishment language being used in theory leaves a loop hole form where a surface highway 710 segment could in theory be added in the Pasadena gap given the wording used:

https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE710.html

Whatís weird to me with 710 is why just delete the Pasadena Gap from the Freeway & Expressway System but not amend the terminus to be something different than 210?
« Last Edit: May 22, 2022, 03:27:25 PM by Max Rockatansky »
Logged

cahwyguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 595
  • California Highway Guy

  • Age: 62
  • Location: Northridge, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:23:03 AM
    • California Highways
Re: CA 187
« Reply #10 on: May 23, 2022, 09:37:01 AM »

In theory subsection (2) ought to delete the definition of 187 but it seemingly isnít?  Maybe Daniel will see this and chime in regarding the definition of 187 as being active or not:

487. 
(a) Route 187 is from Lincoln Boulevard to Route 10 via Venice Boulevard.
(b) 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 Los Angeles Route 187 within the city between the routeís western terminus at Lincoln Boulevard (approximately postmile 3.5) and its eastern terminus at Cadillac Avenue near Route 10 (approximately postmile 8.9), if the department and the city enter into an agreement providing for that relinquishment. The following conditions shall apply upon relinquishment:
(1) The relinquishment shall become effective on the date following the county recorderís recordation of the relinquishment resolution containing the commissionís approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment.
(2) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, Route 187 shall cease to be a state highway.

(3) Route 187, as relinquished under this subdivision, shall be ineligible for future adoption under Section 81.
(Amended by Stats. 2015, Ch. 561, Sec. 2. (AB 810) Effective January 1, 2016.)


I think you are confusing the legislative definition with the adopted route. There are many routes that have legislative definitions, which signals the intent of the legislature to have a route between point A and point B. At some point, a specific route is adopted and maintained. At some later point, that maintained route is either relinquished or vacated. This often has the stipulation that the relinquished physical route can't come back into state maintenance. That doesn't preclude a NEW adopted route sometime in the future between point A and point B.

When the legislature decides it no longer wants the route, it deletes the legislative definition.

(And yes, they do need to do a cleanup of the State Highway Code to get rid of dead routes and other errors, but none of the legislators are sufficiently nerdy to care).
Logged
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

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3752
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: August 10, 2022, 06:52:36 PM
Re: CA 187
« Reply #11 on: July 12, 2022, 10:44:09 PM »

In theory subsection (2) ought to delete the definition of 187 but it seemingly isnít?  Maybe Daniel will see this and chime in regarding the definition of 187 as being active or not:

487. 
(a) Route 187 is from Lincoln Boulevard to Route 10 via Venice Boulevard.
(b) 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 Los Angeles Route 187 within the city between the routeís western terminus at Lincoln Boulevard (approximately postmile 3.5) and its eastern terminus at Cadillac Avenue near Route 10 (approximately postmile 8.9), if the department and the city enter into an agreement providing for that relinquishment. The following conditions shall apply upon relinquishment:
(1) The relinquishment shall become effective on the date following the county recorderís recordation of the relinquishment resolution containing the commissionís approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment.
(2) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, Route 187 shall cease to be a state highway.

(3) Route 187, as relinquished under this subdivision, shall be ineligible for future adoption under Section 81.
(Amended by Stats. 2015, Ch. 561, Sec. 2. (AB 810) Effective January 1, 2016.)


I think you are confusing the legislative definition with the adopted route. There are many routes that have legislative definitions, which signals the intent of the legislature to have a route between point A and point B. At some point, a specific route is adopted and maintained. At some later point, that maintained route is either relinquished or vacated. This often has the stipulation that the relinquished physical route can't come back into state maintenance. That doesn't preclude a NEW adopted route sometime in the future between point A and point B.

When the legislature decides it no longer wants the route, it deletes the legislative definition.

(And yes, they do need to do a cleanup of the State Highway Code to get rid of dead routes and other errors, but none of the legislators are sufficiently nerdy to care).

In some ways, it would seem to make more sense if the highway definitions were more regulatory rather than statutory.  What it would mean is that Caltrans would be delegated to maintain the highway system and assign the route numbering and the legislature would not be involved.
Logged

 


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.