Regional Boards > Pacific Southwest

CA 37

<< < (3/3)

Quillz:
On a completely unrelated note:

Back in 1963, CA-37 was from US-101 to Sears Point, at which point it turned northeast. Sears Point to Vallejo was CA-48. Then the following year, with the renumbering, CA-37 took over all of CA-48, and the majority of CA-37 became CA-121. It seems like the more logical move would have been to just truncate CA-37 to Sears Point, and have the entire west-east route CA-48. This would have kept both numbers mostly in place and only required a slight renumbering. Instead, CA-37 was completely realigned and then an entirely new number was assigned, leading to (presumably) a lot more confusion and resigning.

Any idea why CA-48 wasn't kept as a number?

cahwyguy:

--- Quote from: Quillz on September 21, 2023, 08:38:36 AM ---On a completely unrelated note:

Back in 1963, CA-37 was from US-101 to Sears Point, at which point it turned northeast. Sears Point to Vallejo was CA-48. Then the following year, with the renumbering, CA-37 took over all of CA-48, and the majority of CA-37 became CA-121. It seems like the more logical move would have been to just truncate CA-37 to Sears Point, and have the entire west-east route CA-48. This would have kept both numbers mostly in place and only required a slight renumbering. Instead, CA-37 was completely realigned and then an entirely new number was assigned, leading to (presumably) a lot more confusion and resigning.

Any idea why CA-48 wasn't kept as a number?

--- End quote ---

Possibly because they wanted to reuse the number as a freeway in Southern California, supplanting in some part Route 138? See https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE048.html

The Ghostbuster:
It's not like California is ever going to bring back the US 48 designation, so a CA 48 could theoretically be designated somewhere within the state, although that doesn't seem likely.

Quillz:

--- Quote from: cahwyguy on September 21, 2023, 11:14:22 AM ---
--- Quote from: Quillz on September 21, 2023, 08:38:36 AM ---On a completely unrelated note:

Back in 1963, CA-37 was from US-101 to Sears Point, at which point it turned northeast. Sears Point to Vallejo was CA-48. Then the following year, with the renumbering, CA-37 took over all of CA-48, and the majority of CA-37 became CA-121. It seems like the more logical move would have been to just truncate CA-37 to Sears Point, and have the entire west-east route CA-48. This would have kept both numbers mostly in place and only required a slight renumbering. Instead, CA-37 was completely realigned and then an entirely new number was assigned, leading to (presumably) a lot more confusion and resigning.

Any idea why CA-48 wasn't kept as a number?

--- End quote ---

Possibly because they wanted to reuse the number as a freeway in Southern California, supplanting in some part Route 138? See https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE048.html


--- End quote ---
I know about that, but I wonder why? You already had an established number, there were plenty of other numbers that could have been used for that still-unbuilt route in SoCal. It just seemed liked a weird choice that went against the entire idea of simplifying things.

Max Rockatansky:
The primary problem is that CA 48 is still legislatively defined.  Having to make a change through the legislative process probably makes assigning the number 48 an immediate non starter.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

Go to full version