Regional Boards > Pacific Southwest

CA 187

<< < (2/3) > >>

oscar:

--- Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 21, 2022, 09:29:45 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.

--- End quote ---

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.

Max Rockatansky:

--- Quote from: oscar on May 22, 2022, 02:23:38 PM ---
--- Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 21, 2022, 09:29:45 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.

--- End quote ---

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.

--- End quote ---

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.

Max Rockatansky:
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.)

oscar:
^ 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.

Max Rockatansky:
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?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version