It's one of my biggest pet peeves about CalTrans. The fact that they allow what are basically two separate roads with the same route numbers to exist for such a long period of time. I first realized it when I thought I could take CA 39 north from Huntington Beach to get to Asuza, only to find an END California 39 shield at Harbor Blvd, because nothing connects it to the other CA 39 further north. Has there been any updates on completing some of these?
I once tried taking 84 from the Dumbarton to Sacramento.
good luck with that.
Then there's also the two CA-65 segments: one in Sacto and the other in the southeastern San Joaquin Valley...
of these, 39 seems the most egregious since how hard would it be to just sign 39 over County N-8?
I also tried taking 168 across the Sierra Nevada...good luck ;)
2
From 138 goes along San Gabriels (Angeles Crest Hwy) and proceeds to 210, follows it to Glendale Freeway, then to Echo Park, then follows 101 to Santa Monica and then follows SMB to West Hollywood where it "ends", it "begins" again at the WH/Beverly Hills limits and continues to the west BH/LA limits at Century City where it "ends" AGAIN until you reach Sepulveda Blvd where it "begins" yet again to Santa Monica where it ends again - prematurely. It originally was continuous all the way to Ocean Ave along the 1.
Quote from: SSOWorld on August 26, 2013, 11:15:52 PM
2
From 138 goes along San Gabriels (Angeles Crest Hwy) and proceeds to 210, follows it to Glendale Freeway, then to Echo Park, then follows 101 to Santa Monica and then follows SMB to West Hollywood where it "ends", it "begins" again at the WH/Beverly Hills limits and continues to the west BH/LA limits at Century City where it "ends" AGAIN until you reach Sepulveda Blvd where it "begins" yet again to Santa Monica where it ends again - prematurely. It originally was continuous all the way to Ocean Ave along the 1.
These are gaps in maintenance, not in signage:
QuoteThe relinquished former portions of Route 2 within the Cities of West Hollywood, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and Los Angeles are not state highways and are not eligible for adoption under Section 81. Those cities shall maintain signs within their respective jurisdictions directing motorists to the continuation of Route 2.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 26, 2013, 08:56:15 PM
of these, 39 seems the most egregious since how hard would it be to just sign 39 over County N-8?
Actually, CalTrans is legally permitted to adopt Harbor Blvd to Asuza Ave for CA 39, but they have not done so yet.
Quote from: NE2 on August 26, 2013, 11:19:43 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on August 26, 2013, 11:15:52 PM
2
From 138 goes along San Gabriels (Angeles Crest Hwy) and proceeds to 210, follows it to Glendale Freeway, then to Echo Park, then follows 101 to Santa Monica and then follows SMB to West Hollywood where it "ends", it "begins" again at the WH/Beverly Hills limits and continues to the west BH/LA limits at Century City where it "ends" AGAIN until you reach Sepulveda Blvd where it "begins" yet again to Santa Monica where it ends again - prematurely. It originally was continuous all the way to Ocean Ave along the 1.
These are gaps in maintenance, not in signage:
QuoteThe relinquished former portions of Route 2 within the Cities of West Hollywood, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and Los Angeles are not state highways and are not eligible for adoption under Section 81. Those cities shall maintain signs within their respective jurisdictions directing motorists to the continuation of Route 2.
CA 39 is like this too. Portions have been relinquished in West Covina and Asuza, but the state keeps it up through the San Gabriel Mountains.
Another example for the Los Angeles area. CA 90. Around Brea, it's a road that takes you from CA 39 to CA 91, but if you live near the airport it's the Marina Freeway.
CA-190 & CA-178 both have unconstructed segments. These highways are also in a way parralel to each other, both are east-west, & they connect the San Joaquin Valley (Central Valley), southern Sierra Nevada, & Mojave Desert regions of California. Their eastern terminus are also located near the state line with Nevada. The gap for CA-190 is at the Sierra Nevada & the gap for CA-178 is near Death Valley National Park.
Route 16 between Woodland and Sacramento's College Greens neighborhood. Previously, it was a shorter gap from downtown Sacramento to College Greens.
Quote from: NE2 on August 26, 2013, 11:19:43 PM
Quote from: SSOWorld on August 26, 2013, 11:15:52 PM
2
From 138 goes along San Gabriels (Angeles Crest Hwy) and proceeds to 210, follows it to Glendale Freeway, then to Echo Park, then follows 101 to Santa Monica and then follows SMB to West Hollywood where it "ends", it "begins" again at the WH/Beverly Hills limits and continues to the west BH/LA limits at Century City where it "ends" AGAIN until you reach Sepulveda Blvd where it "begins" yet again to Santa Monica where it ends again - prematurely. It originally was continuous all the way to Ocean Ave along the 1.
These are gaps in maintenance, not in signage:
QuoteThe relinquished former portions of Route 2 within the Cities of West Hollywood, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and Los Angeles are not state highways and are not eligible for adoption under Section 81. Those cities shall maintain signs within their respective jurisdictions directing motorists to the continuation of Route 2.
West Hollywood, LA and Santa Monica aren't doing a good job of it. In fact, LA is more focused on putting up Armadillos.
so where the **** is the end of route 2? at the 5?
Quote from: emory on August 26, 2013, 08:09:47 PM
It's one of my biggest pet peeves about CalTrans. The fact that they allow what are basically two separate roads with the same route numbers to exist for such a long period of time. I first realized it when I thought I could take CA 39 north from Huntington Beach to get to Asuza, only to find an END California 39 shield at Harbor Blvd, because nothing connects it to the other CA 39 further north. Has there been any updates on completing some of these?
You'd love Indiana then. There are multiple segments of multiple state routes with multiple end signs.
Quote from: emory on August 27, 2013, 12:34:04 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 26, 2013, 08:56:15 PM
of these, 39 seems the most egregious since how hard would it be to just sign 39 over County N-8?
Actually, CalTrans is legally permitted to adopt Harbor Blvd to Asuza Ave for CA 39, but they have not done so yet.
I don't care who adopts what. until that adoption happens, CA-39 should be signed along the most obvious routing. remember, route shields are intended to be
an aid to navigation primarily, as opposed to an advertisement for the maintaining authority. there is no rational purpose for having an effective through route between widely traveled points to be signed 39-N8-39. none.
if you want to suck the relevant dicks, have LA county put a tab under each CA-39 shield saying "we maintain this shit, bro. LA County 4 LYFE!!"
Quote from: jfs1988 on August 27, 2013, 01:22:17 AM
CA-190 & CA-178 both have unconstructed segments. These highways are also in a way parralel to each other, both are east-west, & they connect the San Joaquin Valley (Central Valley), southern Sierra Nevada, & Mojave Desert regions of California. Their eastern terminus are also located near the state line with Nevada. The gap for CA-190 is at the Sierra Nevada & the gap for CA-178 is near Death Valley National Park.
those should both be signed as well. it's kinda awfully eerie driving through Death Valley at 2am, not knowing if you're precisely on the right road or not, because this is the pre-GPS days, and there is a gap in 178 reassurance markers for
seventy-two miles.
190 can just as easily be signed over Sherman Pass and Kennedy Meadows Road.
168 I can understand having a break in signage, since there just isn't a road of any applicable quality over that corridor.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 27, 2013, 12:52:48 PM
Quote from: emory on August 27, 2013, 12:34:04 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 26, 2013, 08:56:15 PM
of these, 39 seems the most egregious since how hard would it be to just sign 39 over County N-8?
Actually, CalTrans is legally permitted to adopt Harbor Blvd to Asuza Ave for CA 39, but they have not done so yet.
I don't care who adopts what. until that adoption happens, CA-39 should be signed along the most obvious routing. remember, route shields are intended to be an aid to navigation primarily, as opposed to an advertisement for the maintaining authority. there is no rational purpose for having an effective through route between widely traveled points to be signed 39-N8-39. none.
if you want to suck the relevant dicks, have LA county put a tab under each CA-39 shield saying "we maintain this shit, bro. LA County 4 LYFE!!"
Or until adoption happens, name the county route after the state road. Back in Florida, FL 15 has a gap in Orange County, so it's signed as Orange County Route 15. Of course Florida has the benefit of not having to deal with this stupid alphanumeric coded system that California has implemented statewide.
Quote from: emory on August 27, 2013, 07:11:51 PM
Or until adoption happens, name the county route after the state road. Back in Florida, FL 15 has a gap in Orange County, so it's signed as Orange County Route 15.
But it has another gap near downtown Orlando (between SR 526 and SR 50), and signage is all for SR 15. (Also, part of SR 15 just north of CR 15 was recently given to the city, but is still signed as a state road for continuity.)
Quote from: NE2 on August 27, 2013, 07:22:07 PM
Quote from: emory on August 27, 2013, 07:11:51 PM
Or until adoption happens, name the county route after the state road. Back in Florida, FL 15 has a gap in Orange County, so it's signed as Orange County Route 15.
But it has another gap near downtown Orlando (between SR 526 and SR 50), and signage is all for SR 15. (Also, part of SR 15 just north of CR 15 was recently given to the city, but is still signed as a state road for continuity.)
True. Another example I could use is FL 865 in Ft. Myers. Does the state allow them to erect state route signs when pieces of a state highway are relinquished to the city? They seem to frown on US route signs being erected.
Quote from: emory on August 28, 2013, 01:32:14 AM
True. Another example I could use is FL 865 in Ft. Myers.
If you mean 867, isn't that signed TO 867 north of 884?
Quote from: emory on August 28, 2013, 01:32:14 AM
Does the state allow them to erect state route signs when pieces of a state highway are relinquished to the city? They seem to frown on US route signs being erected.
The state doesn't need to 'allow' the city to erect signs; it's up to the city whether they want to.
One good example of a gap is 842 in Fort Lauderdale. There's no single obvious routing to fill the gap.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 27, 2013, 12:56:33 PM
Quote from: jfs1988 on August 27, 2013, 01:22:17 AM
CA-190 & CA-178 both have unconstructed segments. These highways are also in a way parralel to each other, both are east-west, & they connect the San Joaquin Valley (Central Valley), southern Sierra Nevada, & Mojave Desert regions of California. Their eastern terminus are also located near the state line with Nevada. The gap for CA-190 is at the Sierra Nevada & the gap for CA-178 is near Death Valley National Park.
those should both be signed as well. it's kinda awfully eerie driving through Death Valley at 2am, not knowing if you're precisely on the right road or not, because this is the pre-GPS days, and there is a gap in 178 reassurance markers for seventy-two miles.
190 can just as easily be signed over Sherman Pass and Kennedy Meadows Road.
168 I can understand having a break in signage, since there just isn't a road of any applicable quality over that corridor.
I didn't know there was a road connecting the two CA-190 segments.
CA-65 was probably supposed to be a Foothill bypass to CA-99. Exit numbers in Roseville start in the 300s.
CA-84 might have at one time been proposed to go up Vasco Rd through Brentwood up to Rio Vista, since there's a stretch between Rio Vista and Sacramento.
Quote from: KEK Inc. on August 29, 2013, 12:56:19 AM
CA-65 was probably supposed to be a Foothill bypass to CA-99. Exit numbers in Roseville start in the 300s.
Still proposed long-term.
CA-146 has a gap through Pinnacles National Park. There are hiking trails connecting either end.
I agree the road gaps are frustrating. There is definitely a need for the signage of touring routes in California.
Legally speaking, when the state relinquishes control, they also relinquish their authority over the road. I don't believe that CA has a requirement to sign state route shields on roads they don't control. Yet it would be a good idea if the city or county put up signage. I would say that there should be a different shaped shield, to denote the different control, but keep the same number. They can even use the county pentagon shield.
[We already see a similar concept in California. CA-110 is a non-interstate continuation of I-110, the different shield will alert the driver that they are no longer on an interstate highway. But keeping the same number aids in navigation.]
In effect, the new shield will denote touring routes - highways under local control but signed for the purposes of navigation.
With respect to specific examples:
CA 19 (Lakewood/Rosemead) would be perfect for a touring route.
CA 39 (Azusa/Beach Blvd) should be a touring route from I-210 to PCH. North of I-210, it should be a state highway.
CA 213 (Western Ave) - state highway number unnecessary
CA 42 (Manchester/Firestone) - state highway number unnecessary
CA 47 state highway from 110 to 710
CA 103 from 47 to Sepulveda, state highway. North of Sepulveda to Alameda/91, touring route.
CA 110 Gaffey Street San Pedro should be a touring route.
CA 90 touring route from 91 to 57. Marina Freeway should be renumbered.
CA 170 should be removed from Highland Ave in Hollywood.
La Cienega between I-10 and I-405 should have a route number
Quote from: emory on August 27, 2013, 07:11:51 PMOf course Florida has the benefit of not having to deal with this stupid alphanumeric coded system that California has implemented statewide.
it seems to be optional. Lassen and Humboldt are two counties which do not use it, for example. furthermore, San Bernardino just slapped a "66" tag onto the old US highway, never mind that all its other county routes start with letter prefixes.
LA County 39 would be perfect.
Quote from: mrsman on September 04, 2013, 01:44:44 PM
I agree the road gaps are frustrating. There is definitely a need for the signage of touring routes in California.
I'm okay with using the spade. I know Vermont distinguishes the state-maintained and town-maintained segments of its continuously numbered routes (using a circle vs. a television-set shield), but I think that is superfluous. as long as the road quality isn't substantially diminished (as in your I-110 vs CA-110 example), the road marker can remain the same.
that said, if someone brought back white spades for the touring routes, I would not object.
Quote from: mrsman on September 04, 2013, 01:44:44 PM
Legally speaking, when the state relinquishes control, they also relinquish their authority over the road. I don't believe that CA has a requirement to sign state route shields on roads they don't control. Yet it would be a good idea if the city or county put up signage.
Quote from: NE2 on August 26, 2013, 11:19:43 PM
QuoteThe relinquished former portions of Route 2 within the Cities of West Hollywood, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and Los Angeles are not state highways and are not eligible for adoption under Section 81. Those cities shall maintain signs within their respective jurisdictions directing motorists to the continuation of Route 2.
Quote from: emory on August 27, 2013, 12:39:49 AM
Another example for the Los Angeles area. CA 90. Around Brea, it's a road that takes you from CA 39 to CA 91, but if you live near the airport it's the Marina Freeway.
Quote from: mrsman on September 04, 2013, 01:44:44 PM
CA 90 touring route from 91 to 57. Marina Freeway should be renumbered.
The east end of 90 should be renumbered as an extension of CA 72. It would be cheaper in signage to do that than renumber the western freeway portion.
Quote from: NE2 on August 28, 2013, 03:06:55 AM
Quote from: emory on August 28, 2013, 01:32:14 AM
True. Another example I could use is FL 865 in Ft. Myers.
If you mean 867, isn't that signed TO 867 north of 884?
No I meant FL 865. It mostly exists as Lee County Route 865, but the San Carlos Blvd. portion and the portion of Ben C. Pratt/Six Mile Cypress Parkway between US 41 and FL 739 are maintained by FDOT, and are signed properly. However the whole route is signed with county or state shields so locals can still easily refer to it as "Route 865" if they so wish.
Caltrans has long had a proposed CA-190 segment that would connect the two existing portions. That's in addition to the other proposal that someone posted earlier in this topic. But a combination of weather, elevation and protected wilderness areas means it will never be built.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on September 09, 2013, 03:08:02 PM
Quote from: emory on August 27, 2013, 12:39:49 AM
Another example for the Los Angeles area. CA 90. Around Brea, it's a road that takes you from CA 39 to CA 91, but if you live near the airport it's the Marina Freeway.
Quote from: mrsman on September 04, 2013, 01:44:44 PM
CA 90 touring route from 91 to 57. Marina Freeway should be renumbered.
The east end of 90 should be renumbered as an extension of CA 72. It would be cheaper in signage to do that than renumber the western freeway portion.
That's an interesting idea. I'm so used to the days when I grew up in California during the 70s and 80s that CA 72 was Whittier and Harbor (the ancient 101 route), 39 was Beach-Hacienda-Azusa, and 90 was Imperial Highway from CA 91 to the 605. Looking at a current map, it seems that CA 72 is west of CA 39 and CA 90 is east of CA 39, so combining Imperial Hwy and Whittier Blvd along one state route (CA 72) is doable.
Quote from: KEK Inc. on August 29, 2013, 12:56:19 AM
CA-65 was probably supposed to be a Foothill bypass to CA-99. Exit numbers in Roseville start in the 300s.
I remember seeing maps showing SR-65 going down Sunrise Blvd to US-50 although id don't think this was ever official. I do know however that there was an proposed eastside highway that was at one time planned to connect the two sections of SR-65. I don't know if those plans even still exist anymore. Could the central valley use another north south freeway, maybe. SR-99 is pretty congested, and with its planned upgrade to interstate it will only become more congested.
Quote from: Indyroads on September 17, 2013, 12:40:48 AM
I do know however that there was an proposed eastside highway that was at one time planned to connect the two sections of SR-65. I don't know if those plans even still exist anymore. Could the central valley use another north south freeway, maybe. SR-99 is pretty congested, and with its planned upgrade to interstate it will only become more congested.
An alternate north-south option to 99 would be a Godsend. Unfortunately, the land acquisition and construction costs push it into the realm of the Fictional Highways board. Not gonna happen.
how about Old CA-480 the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco it was supposed to connect to I-280 and US-101 covering the Northern part of San Francisco.
Or How about the proposed Southern Crossing I-380 to I-238 but was prevented by SFO.
Quote from: Quillz on September 10, 2013, 01:01:10 PM
Caltrans has long had a proposed CA-190 segment that would connect the two existing portions. That's in addition to the other proposal that someone posted earlier in this topic. But a combination of weather, elevation and protected wilderness areas means it will never be built.
you could just, you know, use the roads that are already built.
Quote from: Indyroads on September 17, 2013, 12:40:48 AM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on August 29, 2013, 12:56:19 AM
CA-65 was probably supposed to be a Foothill bypass to CA-99. Exit numbers in Roseville start in the 300s.
I remember seeing maps showing SR-65 going down Sunrise Blvd to US-50 although id don't think this was ever official. I do know however that there was an proposed eastside highway that was at one time planned to connect the two sections of SR-65. I don't know if those plans even still exist anymore. Could the central valley use another north south freeway, maybe. SR-99 is pretty congested, and with its planned upgrade to interstate it will only become more congested.
There used to be SR-65 postmiles south of Folsom Blvd down to around Route 16.
Quote from: sdmichael on October 08, 2013, 11:05:58 PM
Quote from: Indyroads on September 17, 2013, 12:40:48 AM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on August 29, 2013, 12:56:19 AM
CA-65 was probably supposed to be a Foothill bypass to CA-99. Exit numbers in Roseville start in the 300s.
I remember seeing maps showing SR-65 going down Sunrise Blvd to US-50 although id don't think this was ever official. I do know however that there was an proposed eastside highway that was at one time planned to connect the two sections of SR-65. I don't know if those plans even still exist anymore. Could the central valley use another north south freeway, maybe. SR-99 is pretty congested, and with its planned upgrade to interstate it will only become more congested.
There used to be SR-65 postmiles south of Folsom Blvd down to around Route 16.
The Caltrans maps from 1970 and 1975 show Sunrise as an "official" part of CA-65 between US 50 and Grant Line Road. North of there, it was "proposed - general route determined" following the Hazel/Sierra College corridor to I-80.
It was no longer on the map by 1977 - according to cahighways.org, the portion in Sacramento county was relinquished in 1975, only to be re-adopted in 1985 (although no longer on any "official" route).
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on September 09, 2013, 03:08:02 PM
The east end of 90 should be renumbered as an extension of CA 72. It would be cheaper in signage to do that than renumber the western freeway portion.
Actually, according to CalTrans logs, they plan to relinquish CA 72 once CA 90 reaches I-5.
Quote from: emory on October 09, 2013, 09:58:13 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on September 09, 2013, 03:08:02 PM
The east end of 90 should be renumbered as an extension of CA 72. It would be cheaper in signage to do that than renumber the western freeway portion.
Actually, according to CalTrans logs, they plan to relinquish CA 72 once CA 90 reaches I-5.
I suspect that California 90 will reach the 5 the same day they complete the Embarcadero Freeway.
Quote from: bing101 on September 24, 2013, 03:55:22 PM
how about Old CA-480 the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco it was supposed to connect to I-280 and US-101 covering the Northern part of San Francisco.
Or How about the proposed Southern Crossing I-380 to I-238 but was prevented by SFO.
I thought the Southern Crossing was prevented by general lack of money, the San Mateo Bridge not being all that congested (as Bay Area bridges go), and lack of good approach routes from the east side. I-238 ends at I-880 and there's about a mile of subdivisions between I-880 and the shore.
Quote from: kkt
I thought the Southern Crossing was prevented by general lack of money, the San Mateo Bridge not being all that congested (as Bay Area bridges go), and lack of good approach routes from the east side. I-238 ends at I-880 and there's about a mile of subdivisions between I-880 and the shore.
I wonder what halted the original Southern Crossing (the late-1960s plan to extend what is now I-980 west to Alameda and then to the US 101/Army Street interchange in SF) - the later 380/238 connection suffers also from being at the widest point of the Bay, which an Alameda crossing further north wouldn't have had to deal with.
Quote from: TheStranger on October 11, 2013, 11:16:48 AM
Quote
I thought the Southern Crossing was prevented by general lack of money, the San Mateo Bridge not being all that congested (as Bay Area bridges go), and lack of good approach routes from the east side. I-238 ends at I-880 and there's about a mile of subdivisions between I-880 and the shore.
I wonder what halted the original Southern Crossing (the late-1960s plan to extend what is now I-980 west to Alameda and then to the US 101/Army Street interchange in SF) - the later 380/238 connection suffers also from being at the widest point of the Bay, which an Alameda crossing further north wouldn't have had to deal with.
One thing was that they hoped BART would take enough traffic off the Bay Bridge that they hoped another bridge wouldn't be needed. And BART did buy time, another Bay crossing would have been needed by the early 1980s if BART hadn't been there.
Ca-146 used to go through pinnacles national park, you can follow the old road bed when hiking. The question is, when did they close the middle part, and was it ca-146 at the time.
Quote from: jander on December 24, 2013, 01:07:33 AM
Ca-146 used to go through pinnacles national park
[citation needed]
http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/view/search?q=caltrans&sort=Date
1934 is the first to show what's now SR 146, and it already has a gap.
http://www.nps.gov/pinn/historyculture/index.htm talks about roads in the park and says nothing about being able to drive through.
Citation, it was a road at one point, now its a trail. Along the trail are informative signs about restoring it back to nature and the damage done to the stream due to the road.
That being said, its possible the road never truly connected, but it certainly went much farther in than it does now.
Having recently hiked a portion of the trail in Pinnacles NP, I can safely say the road never went through. It did go further east and west, but never connected. The middle portion has a "talus cave" and is quite narrow. It would be difficult to even take a bicycle, let alone ride one.
Quote from: sdmichael on December 24, 2013, 02:12:14 AM
Having recently hiked a portion of the trail in Pinnacles NP, I can safely say the road never went through. It did go further east and west, but never connected. The middle portion has a "talus cave" and is quite narrow. It would be difficult to even take a bicycle, let alone ride one.
As someone who has also hiked that portion of the trail (granted that happened some 20-25 years ago), there is a bypass for those who don't want to enter the cave but there's no way that trail could have been an old alignment of CA-146.
Quote from: kkt on October 10, 2013, 07:19:36 PM
Quote from: bing101 on September 24, 2013, 03:55:22 PM
how about Old CA-480 the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco it was supposed to connect to I-280 and US-101 covering the Northern part of San Francisco.
Or How about the proposed Southern Crossing I-380 to I-238 but was prevented by SFO.
I thought the Southern Crossing was prevented by general lack of money, the San Mateo Bridge not being all that congested (as Bay Area bridges go), and lack of good approach routes from the east side. I-238 ends at I-880 and there's about a mile of subdivisions between I-880 and the shore.
The freeway revolt in 1956 is what started putting nails on the coffins.
http://burritojustice.com/2009/02/20/mission-freeway-30th-st-bart/
And for old maps, Eric's photostream will keep you busy for days.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/3889615209/
http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=24431382@N03&q=southern%20crossing
(//)
There's one more road into the western Sierra Nevada that may have existed on the east side as well, and thats 180 into Kings Canyon. Here's a 1941 map by the Automobile Club of Southern California that shows 180 emerging on Onion Valley Road into Independence:
http://historicalroadmaps.com/CaliforniaPage/DeathValleyPage/image2.html (http://historicalroadmaps.com/CaliforniaPage/DeathValleyPage/image2.html)
Although you wouldn't expect the Auto Club to include some rumored or fantasized road in their maps, I've never seen any other map that showed this road as 180.
I have a 1939 Standard Oil of CA (HM Gousha) map showing SR-180 on Onion Valley Road as well. It does go back and still stands as the shortest gap between paved roadways in the Sierra Nevada. The second would be SR-168. SR-190, optimally, would traverse Sherman Pass Road and Great Western Divide Highway with a cosign with US 395 to Olancha from JNO Pearsonville.
^I would guess the creation of Kings Canyon National Park in 1940 killed any plans for extending 180 across the Sierras.
That, and frankly the topography of that portion of the Sierras is incredibly inhospitable to road-building.
The elevation of SR 180 at road's end is just over 5,000 feet. Onion Valley Road ends at around 9,200 feet. The logical pass in the area is 11,709-foot Kearsarge Pass. The space in between is a tortured mess of knife-edged granite ridges and plunging canyons. I think if they'd have tried it, it would have been the greatest feat of road engineering in the state... and a maintenance nightmare going from nowhere to almost-nowhere that would be closed by snow 9 months a year.
It's a little bit amazing that the state was once ambitious enough to conceive building some of the roads that were proposed through the Sierra Nevada's. It's amazing they were able to build some of the roads that the did build. The "freeway" segment of the Kern Canyon Highway is pretty cool, even if it is unnecessary, and from everything I have read about the Tioga Road (I have yet to drive it), it's pretty awesome.
The Tioga Road wasn't the state's doing at all, actually. It was originally a private toll road built to service the Tioga Mine at the crest of the Sierras. When the mine closed, the road started deteriorating... and then Yosemite National Park was declared. In 1915, Stephen T. Mather (first director of the NPS) spent $15,000 of his own money to buy the right-of-way and promptly donated it to the federal government to become part of the park. In the 1950s, it was rebuilt and massively realigned under the Mission 66 park infrastructure program, and it remains an NPS road. Hence, state maintenance ends at the boundary and you have to pay the entrance fee even if you only intend to drive straight through. (Same with 140 and 41.)
One sign for Route 170 remains on Highland! Always have been surprised how this road stayed in the system for years after the Laurel Canyon/La Cienga/LAX segment was cancelled. (also thought it odd the planned LAX segment, discontinuous, remained on the books for years when the Laurel Canyon portion was deleted legislatively)
Quote from: polarscribe on January 21, 2014, 07:24:10 AM
The Tioga Road wasn't the state's doing at all, actually. It was originally a private toll road built to service the Tioga Mine at the crest of the Sierras. When the mine closed, the road started deteriorating... and then Yosemite National Park was declared. In 1915, Stephen T. Mather (first director of the NPS) spent $15,000 of his own money to buy the right-of-way and promptly donated it to the federal government to become part of the park. In the 1950s, it was rebuilt and massively realigned under the Mission 66 park infrastructure program, and it remains an NPS road. Hence, state maintenance ends at the boundary and you have to pay the entrance fee even if you only intend to drive straight through. (Same with 140 and 41.)
The realignment and rebuilding were massively expensive and cost about as much as starting from scratch would have.
It used to be possible to hike or ski tour along the old Tioga road. My dad told me about doing that with some of his friends before I came along. I'm not sure if that can still be done, though.
Quote from: TheStranger on February 15, 2014, 06:40:45 PM
One sign for Route 170 remains on Highland! Always have been surprised how this road stayed in the system for years after the Laurel Canyon/La Cienga/LAX segment was cancelled. (also thought it odd the planned LAX segment, discontinuous, remained on the books for years when the Laurel Canyon portion was deleted legislatively)
And CalTrans has no plans to delete Highland Ave from the SHS either. Santa Monica Blvd is more likely to go first.
edit: WAIT!
Quote from: CalTrans Logs(b) The relinquished former portion of Route 170 within the City
of Los Angeles between Route 2 and Route 101 is not a state highway
and is not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For that
relinquished former portion of Route 170, the City of Los Angeles
shall maintain signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route
170.
When did this happen?!
Going back to my original post about CA 39, the logs' definition of it has been updated to indicate an adopted route between 72 and I-10. It also shows that a chunk in Buena Park has been relinquished.
Quote from: CalTrans logs339. Route 39 is from:
(a) Route 1 near Huntington Beach to the southern city limit of
Buena Park.
(b) Route 5 in Buena Park to Route 72 in La Habra via Beach
Boulevard.
(c) Beach Boulevard to Harbor Boulevard in La Habra via Whittier
Boulevard.
(d) Whittier Boulevard in La Habra to Route 2 via Harbor Boulevard
to the vicinity of Fullerton Road, then to Azusa Avenue, Azusa
Avenue to San Gabriel Canyon Road, San Gabriel Avenue southbound
between Azusa Avenue and San Gabriel Canyon Road, and San Gabriel
Canyon Road, other than the portion of the segment described by this
subdivision that is within the city limits of Azusa, Covina, and West
Covina.
The relinquished former portions of Route 39 within the city
limits of Azusa, Buena Park, Covina, and West Covina are not state
highways and are not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the
relinquished former portions of Route 39, the Cities of Azusa, Buena
Park, Covina, and West Covina shall maintain within their respective
jurisdictions signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route
39.
Quote from: emory on February 16, 2014, 06:23:45 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on February 15, 2014, 06:40:45 PM
One sign for Route 170 remains on Highland! Always have been surprised how this road stayed in the system for years after the Laurel Canyon/La Cienga/LAX segment was cancelled. (also thought it odd the planned LAX segment, discontinuous, remained on the books for years when the Laurel Canyon portion was deleted legislatively)
And CalTrans has no plans to delete Highland Ave from the SHS either. Santa Monica Blvd is more likely to go first.
edit: WAIT!
Quote from: CalTrans Logs(b) The relinquished former portion of Route 170 within the City
of Los Angeles between Route 2 and Route 101 is not a state highway
and is not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For that
relinquished former portion of Route 170, the City of Los Angeles
shall maintain signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route
170.
When did this happen?!
Growing up very close to this area in the 70's and 80's, I never saw a 170 sign on Highland. I believe it was the early 90's when they started to put up the signs. I also never saw the 187 signs on Venice Blvd. Then LA started putting up the signs and I was very puzzled. Caltrans never put up such signs. There is no reference to 170 at the Highland exit off the 101 and there is no 187 sign on the I-10 or I-405 Venice exits. I don't even believe that the signs are really that helpful. You can use basically any exit in Hollywood to connect from the 101 to Santa Monica Blvd., the 170 signage can only confuse and in my opinion should be limited to the Hollywood Freeway between I-5 and 101/134.
If you're going to sign a route, sign it completely, including the nearby freeway exit signs. If you're not going to sign a route, then get rid of it completely and greenout the exit signs.
is it me..or is 47 between 91 and 103 another example of this specific type of signage inconsistency found with 187 and the Highland Avenue segment of 170? I have heard (though would need to check out in person) 47 from Anaheim Street north, along Alameda, is signed...yet there has never been acknowledgment of the route off 91 or 405.
Quote from: TheStranger on February 16, 2014, 12:22:41 PM
is it me..or is 47 between 91 and 103 another example of this specific type of signage inconsistency found with 187 and the Highland Avenue segment of 170? I have heard (though would need to check out in person) 47 from Anaheim Street north, along Alameda, is signed...yet there has never been acknowledgment of the route off 91 or 405.
About 15 years ago they replaced a bunch of signs on the 405. One for Alameda on the n/b 405 (https://ssl.panoramio.com/photo/46905957)was extra tall as if they were planning to pit a 47 shield on it someday.
Of course they havent yet.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on February 16, 2014, 03:37:33 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on February 16, 2014, 12:22:41 PM
is it me..or is 47 between 91 and 103 another example of this specific type of signage inconsistency found with 187 and the Highland Avenue segment of 170? I have heard (though would need to check out in person) 47 from Anaheim Street north, along Alameda, is signed...yet there has never been acknowledgment of the route off 91 or 405.
About 15 years ago they replaced a bunch of signs on the 405. One for Alameda on the n/b 405 (https://ssl.panoramio.com/photo/46905957)was extra tall as if they were planning to pit a 47 shield on it someday.
Of course they havent yet.
I've seen those for quite some time! I know that prior to the early 1980s, 103 didn't exist and 47 was the entire Terminal Island Freeway (the segment of 47 from 103 north along Alameda is actually a part of the original 1964 definition of the route).
Similar "space for a shield" situation exists on 101 at a county road near Thousand Oaks (23 reroute?) and on 101 at the "Monterey Peninsula" exit in Salinas (68 reroute?).
Do you know if 47 is well-signed along Alameda?
Quote from: TheStranger on February 16, 2014, 04:03:48 PM
Do you know if 47 is well-signed along Alameda?
Yes, once you're on Alameda, there are reassurance signs for California 47 north. They more or less end at the point where Alameda passes under California 91. As noted up-thread, there's no acknowledgement of California 47 along Alameda from any of the intersecting state highways. I think this may change once the "Port Access Expressway" link is complete between Alameda and Terminal Island. (See http://www.acta.org/projects/projects_planning_SR47.asp for more on this expressway.)
Regards,
Andy
Quote from: andy3175 on February 16, 2014, 04:06:32 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on February 16, 2014, 04:03:48 PM
Do you know if 47 is well-signed along Alameda?
Yes, once you're on Alameda, there are reassurance signs for California 47 north. They more or less end at the point where Alameda passes under California 91. As noted up-thread, there's no acknowledgement of California 47 along Alameda from any of the intersecting state highways. I think this may change once the "Port Access Expressway" link is complete between Alameda and Terminal Island. (See http://www.acta.org/projects/projects_planning_SR47.asp for more on this expressway.)
Regards,
Andy
The fact that the project specifically is referred to as Route 47 (as opposed to the Richmond Parkway project when that was being worked on by municipal entities) probably speaks to that.
Amazing too that such short and odd routes like Route 170 on Highland are better signed - relatively speaking - than, say, Route 221 on its entirety (where there are no reassurance shields except at the junction with 29) and Route 128 in Yolo County (no reassurance shields westbound past Winters). Or even Route 18 between the Palmdale area and I-15 (severe lack of reassurance shields there)!
Quote from: TheStranger on February 16, 2014, 04:12:19 PM
Amazing too that such short and odd routes like Route 170 on Highland are better signed - relatively speaking - than, say, Route 221 on its entirety (where there are no reassurance shields except at the junction with 29) and Route 128 in Yolo County (no reassurance shields westbound past Winters). Or even Route 18 between the Palmdale area and I-15 (severe lack of reassurance shields there)!
One challenge is to find a standalone California 74 shield posted anywhere along Ortega Highway within Orange County. There aren't that many around ... or at least there weren't back before the recent construction efforts were underway in the mountains.
Regards,
Andy
Quote from: mrsman on February 16, 2014, 07:37:25 AM
Growing up very close to this area in the 70's and 80's, I never saw a 170 sign on Highland. I believe it was the early 90's when they started to put up the signs. I also never saw the 187 signs on Venice Blvd. Then LA started putting up the signs and I was very puzzled. Caltrans never put up such signs. There is no reference to 170 at the Highland exit off the 101 and there is no 187 sign on the I-10 or I-405 Venice exits. I don't even believe that the signs are really that helpful. You can use basically any exit in Hollywood to connect from the 101 to Santa Monica Blvd., the 170 signage can only confuse and in my opinion should be limited to the Hollywood Freeway between I-5 and 101/134.
If you're going to sign a route, sign it completely, including the nearby freeway exit signs. If you're not going to sign a route, then get rid of it completely and greenout the exit signs.
Well now, thanks to time, the lack of signage on Highland is technically correct. Even the END 170 sign that has sat on the Hollywood Freeway/Ventura Freeway interchange for years is now retroactively accurate. The city just has to yank down that single 170 sign, but that could take a while. There's still a CA 110 south sign on relinquished Arroyo Parkway in Pasadena.
Quote from: andy3175 on February 16, 2014, 04:06:32 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on February 16, 2014, 04:03:48 PM
Do you know if 47 is well-signed along Alameda?
Yes, once you're on Alameda, there are reassurance signs for California 47 north. They more or less end at the point where Alameda passes under California 91. As noted up-thread, there's no acknowledgement of California 47 along Alameda from any of the intersecting state highways. I think this may change once the "Port Access Expressway" link is complete between Alameda and Terminal Island. (See http://www.acta.org/projects/projects_planning_SR47.asp for more on this expressway.)
Regards,
Andy
I guess I'm confused by the video. Alameda is no longer part of CA 47, which technically ends at the 103 offramp, so is CalTrans going to build a new 47 expressway? Do they plan to actually finish the 47 all the way to I-10?
Quote from: emory on February 16, 2014, 06:23:45 AM
Quote from: CalTrans Logs(b) The relinquished former portion of Route 170 within the City
of Los Angeles between Route 2 and Route 101 is not a state highway
and is not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For that
relinquished former portion of Route 170, the City of Los Angeles
shall maintain signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route
170.
When did this happen?!
This sort of thing has been happening gradually. A good reference of the changes to the California Streets and Highways Code (which I don't track very carefully on AARoads) is Daniel Faigin's California Highways site (http://www.cahighways.org/). Daniel tracks legislative changes to route numbers very well.
Daniel's entry for Route 170 notes two relatively recent actions:
QuoteAB 3047, Chapter 650, 9/21/2004, permits the California Transportation Commission to relinquish to the City of Los Angeles this segment of Route 170 pursuant to the terms of a cooperative agreement between the city and the department, upon a determination by the commission that the relinquishment is in the best interests of the state. Such a relinquishment becomes effective immediately following the recordation by the county recorder of the relinquishment resolution containing the commission's approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment. At that point, the portion of Route 170 relinquished under this subdivision shall cease to be a state highway, and cannot be considered for future adoption. This segment was up for relinquishment in November 2005.
QuoteIn May 2007, the LA Department of Public Works issued a press release that noted the Route 170 was under city jurisdiction, as well as acknowledging the receipt of $3.2 million from Caltrans for future street and traffic improvements on the formerly State-owned portion of Highland Avenue. The Department of Public Works Bureau of Engineering (BOE) will take the lead in the design and construction management of future street improvements to ease traffic along the relinquished portion of Highland Avenue, stretching northbound from Santa Monica Boulevard to US 101. This will permit the city to make needed improvements. These improvements include adjusting lane widths to City standards for optimized use of the street's surface and synchronization of street signals to relieve traffic congestion along the Highland corridor. Transfer of jurisdiction over the thoroughfare to the city also gives way to the highly anticipated Highland-Franklin Intersection Improvement Project, which will widen streets and add right-turn pockets to the intersection of Highland and Franklin to mitigate traffic in the area for commuters and local residents.
Given all of this activity, I'm surprised SR 170 between SR 2 and US 101 is even listed as "For that relinquished former portion of Route 170, the City of Los Angeles shall maintain signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 170." It seems like it's not really there's much of a route to the north or south to link up to (since the implied shared alignment with US 101 is certainly not cosigned, noting the END 170 sign posted at the Hollywood Split 101-134-170 interchange).
Regards,
Andy
Quote from: emory on February 16, 2014, 10:04:52 PM
Quote from: andy3175 on February 16, 2014, 04:06:32 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on February 16, 2014, 04:03:48 PM
Do you know if 47 is well-signed along Alameda?
Yes, once you're on Alameda, there are reassurance signs for California 47 north. They more or less end at the point where Alameda passes under California 91. As noted up-thread, there's no acknowledgement of California 47 along Alameda from any of the intersecting state highways. I think this may change once the "Port Access Expressway" link is complete between Alameda and Terminal Island. (See http://www.acta.org/projects/projects_planning_SR47.asp for more on this expressway.)
Regards,
Andy
I guess I'm confused by the video. Alameda is no longer part of CA 47, which technically ends at the 103 offramp, so is CalTrans going to build a new 47 expressway? Do they plan to actually finish the 47 all the way to I-10?
The Alameda Corridor project had many aspects including both road and rail improvements. While rail improvements was the main feature of the project, Alameda Street was improved to "corridor" standards to allow for grade separations with certain east-west streets (mostly in the late 1990s/early 2000s). I've driven the portion of Alameda Street between Anaheim Street and Interstate 105; the improved portion seems to be from Anaheim Street to around SR 91. When I drove it, California 47 was signed along Alameda Street up to SR 91, but it was minimally signed from the Terminal Island Freeway.
Upon researching the Alameda Corridor project, I learned that one missing piece was the link from Terminal Island to the newly upgraded corridor. That piece is the Port Access Expressway, which would create some kind of expressway/direct link from the area around the point where Henry Ford Ave diverges from SR 103/Terminal Island Freeway over to Alameda Street. This expressway would also include a replacement of the Heim Lift Bridge that currently carries SR 47-103 off Terminal Island and onto the mainland (traveling north off the island). As noted on the official site, much of the proposed expressway is unfunded, and I think funding will dictate what, if any improvements will be built to link the Terminal Island Fwy to the Alameda Corridor.
As for the video, I can't say if there's an intent to extend the corridor standards north of SR 91 or not. Alameda St seems to be more like a typical city street once you get north to around I-105, and signage for SR 47 doesn't go that far north.
Finally, I have not been able to determine definitively who exactly maintains Alameda Street itself. The arrangement seems to be local city maintenance perhaps with assistance from the port? I don't know if Caltrans maintains the road or not.
Most of what I've researched and figured out on SR 47 is contained on my webpage https://www.aaroads.com/california/ca-047.html.
Regards,
Andy
CA-170 along Highland is a wasted designation. There is no reason for this to be a state highway. Recycle the miner spades along Highland and use them on another corridor.
Alameda Street OTOH is a truck route. The state highway designation is designed to be an alternate to the 110 or the 710 to connect the ports to the freeway system. Yes, it isn't a freeway, but there are enough grade separations to make this a decent alternative to reach either the 405 or the 91.
The state highway system should contain freeways, and major city to city connectors. Local city streets should not be on the system.
Now some roads, like CA-1 are highway, but also have city portions to them. To maintain connectivity and proper standards, Caltrans should maintain CA-1 along Lincoln and Sepulveda, just as they do along PCH.
Here's the photo of Route 170's lone southbound sign on Highland that I took a few days ago:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3768%2F12601699303_8e37b39c75_z.jpg&hash=3885d95ddbc638333b6ca05d2fc90d64b50cb0c7) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12601699303/)
DSC_7247 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12601699303/) by csampang (http://www.flickr.com/people/csampang/), on Flickr
Also, a few blocks down, is this CalTrans-installed gantry:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3677%2F12601701363_dc8c813a76_z.jpg&hash=f6b50f7ebf9be6b2b482873b441860ca6d6f3b67) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12601701363/)
DSC_7248 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/12601701363/) by csampang (http://www.flickr.com/people/csampang/), on Flickr
Quote from: andy3175 on February 16, 2014, 10:47:35 PM
Given all of this activity, I'm surprised SR 170 between SR 2 and US 101 is even listed as "For that relinquished former portion of Route 170, the City of Los Angeles shall maintain signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 170." It seems like it's not really there's much of a route to the north or south to link up to (since the implied shared alignment with US 101 is certainly not cosigned, noting the END 170 sign posted at the Hollywood Split 101-134-170 interchange).
Regards,
Andy
Caltrans just cuts and pastes that phrase a lot when they relinquish fragments. Besides, many of the cities that take over fragments of state highways don't even follow through with that condition.
I know this is a long dormant thread, but in case anyone is using it as a reference, here are a few missed examples:
CA-162 has a section from US-101 in Longvale to Indian Dick Road in Sherburns. After that, it becomes Forest Route 7 over Mendocino Pass. Eventually, CA-162 reappears at Rd 307 NW of Elk Creek, and it continues all the way across the Central Valley through Oroville, and just past Lake Oroville. The gap is about 27 miles (straight line).
CA-169 follows the Klamath River, where it's possible. There's a short stretch off US-101 in Klamath Glen, and a longer stretch from Johnsons to CA-96 in Weitchpec. The gap is about 12.5 miles.
CA-271 is also used for two disjoint pieces of the old US-101 alignment in NoCal, Cooks Valley to Piercy, and Leggett to Cummings.
Also, check out this fragment of a SoCal Auto Club map (the second one):
http://www.historicalroadmaps.com/CaliforniaPage/DeathValleyPage/ (http://www.historicalroadmaps.com/CaliforniaPage/DeathValleyPage/)
It shows Onion Valley Rd from Independence into the mountains as CA-180, and a proposed road over the mountains. I have found no other reference to this possibility. I wonder if it was ever signed this way.