Recently, CA-1 was relinquished within the City of Santa Monica. As a result all CA-1 shield have been removed from the roadway. New trailblazer "TO" signs will be installed in the near future.
CA-2 was also relinquished many years ago. As a result, a historic sign showing the junction of CA-1 and CA-2 was removed from the intersection of the I-10 eastbound off-ramp at Lincoln Blvd. This is one of the very rare places where 2 numerically consecutive state routes intersect.
Also there are some cool instances where the numerical opposites intersect such as CA-91 and CA-19 (Lakewood Blvd) in the City of Bellflower.
The picture below is of the sign with staff from the Signs & Markings Shop at the City of Santa Monica City Yards. The sign will be hung in the shop.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstpeterandstpaul.org%2Fimages%2Fca1-ca2.jpg&hash=9ee973babaff940b393927d8075fe944c242ae3d)
Why can't they leave well enough alone and continue to sign it as SR 1?
What a shame.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FCA%2FI%2F10%2FI10_CA_rampsign_Lincoln_EB.jpg&hash=88eecf263377b302ec56351b6a397c963c38f400)
Quote from: AndyMax25 on October 01, 2013, 12:51:53 AM
Recently, CA-1 was relinquished within the City of Santa Monica.
okay.
QuoteAs a result all CA-1 shield have been removed from the roadway.
huh?
QuoteNew trailblazer "TO" signs will be installed in the near future.
that doesn't sound like a good use of taxpayer money.
I've noted this before many times: the average driver
does not give a singular rat's ass who maintains a road. they're using route numbers for
navigation. the only logical solution to this non-problem is to leave CA-1 signed precisely the way it always has been.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 01, 2013, 01:08:06 PM
I've noted this before many times: the average driver does not give a singular rat's ass who maintains a road. they're using route numbers for navigation. the only logical solution to this non-problem is to leave CA-1 signed precisely the way it always has been.
And suddenly it dawns on me that, when CSAA/Automobile Club of Southern California was signing routes in the old days...they understood that WAY better than those that have enacted the current "let's sign to mark maintenance" practice.
Quote from: TheStranger on October 01, 2013, 03:16:33 PM
And suddenly it dawns on me that, when CSAA/Automobile Club of Southern California was signing routes in the old days...they understood that WAY better than those that have enacted the current "let's sign to mark maintenance" practice.
Yep.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcaltrafficsigns.com%2Fpictures%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10001%2F024.jpg&hash=66117b026dffd8d03d8a7a30ce68108fa9a6d8a9)
from http://caltrafficsigns.com/pictures/displayimage.php?album=11&pos=3
the "COUNTY" designation is sufficiently insignificant that it doesn't impede navigation. it reminds me of Florida slapping a ton of "COUNTY" and "C" stickers onto various downgraded state highways in 1977. pretty unnecessary but not nearly as much of a waste of money as taking down all 1 shields and replacing them with (apparently different) "to 1" assemblies.
the "TEMPORARY" banner in that 24/12 photo may be superfluous. if it means "this is the road for the next interval; soon we will move the highway onto that road being built several feet away" then it is fine, but if it means "soon this will be under state maintenance, but look and behave precisely the same" then it is unnecessary.
Agree with everything said above. The COUNTY HIGHWAY lets you know who to blame for bad road conditions.
I think that sign was in Walnut Grove, on what is now SR 160 at the Sacramento River bridge. To the right was a county-maintained temporary alignment that was bypassed ca. 1942 by a significantly shorter cutoff. Does pre-1942 jibe with the sign style?
yes, the sign style is 1935-1939.
For the AARoads picture of this sign (Routes 1 and 2), see https://www.aaroads.com/california/images001/ca-001_sb_santa_monica_50.jpg, from the page https://www.aaroads.com/california/ca-001sk.html. It was on the off-ramp from southbound California 1 to Lincoln Blvd, which carries California 1 south toward Venice and California 2 north to link with Santa Monica Blvd. (Very near here is the historic intersection of US 101A and US 66, the western terminus of US 66.) I wonder what if anything replaced this sign?
Regards,
Andy
Quote from: NE2 on October 01, 2013, 09:37:09 AM
Why can't they leave well enough alone and continue to sign it as SR 1?
And make people believe the STATE maintains it?! FUCK THAT SHIT!! ::pulls out CA 1 signs and burns them on the beach::
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 01, 2013, 03:46:58 PM
the "COUNTY" designation is sufficiently insignificant that it doesn't impede navigation. it reminds me of Florida slapping a ton of "COUNTY" and "C" stickers onto various downgraded state highways in 1977. pretty unnecessary but not nearly as much of a waste of money as taking down all 1 shields and replacing them with (apparently different) "to 1" assemblies.
You'll find some "To CA 2" assemblies in Santa Monica as well, including right on the I-10 exit to Lincoln Blvd. Santa Monica is only the first stop, as the cities of Oxnard, Torrance, and Newport Beach are all working to get portions of CA 1 turned over to their local maintenance.
I've always liked how Florida towns handle state relinquishing. If the state relinquishes a road, it simply becomes a county route with the same number, and the blue pentagon shields go up. Although there are instances where if a state route is shortened from one end they won't bother to re-sign the forfeited road, but in the rural parts of Florida where the state gave up most of its roads, there's heavy CR signage. There's few instances where there are small maintenance gaps in long routes through towns along the way. That seems to be a California thing.
Quote from: emory on October 04, 2013, 07:56:30 AMThere's few instances where there are small maintenance gaps in long routes through towns along the way. That seems to be a California thing.
Vermont uses circle shields (instead of the green "television" shields) for town-maintained segments of state highways. there are also begin/end state maintenance signs on occasion.
that said, there remain a lot of older circle shields (when they were used everywhere, before the TV shields were introduced) on state-maintained segments of road... there's even "letterbox" 24x24 square shields with a 23x20 rectangle framing the number, the occasional 16x14 state-named reassurance shield still floats around, and I know of one example that may still be around of a 1950s SOUTH 12 single-piece sign.
Quote from: NE2 on October 01, 2013, 09:37:09 AM
Why can't they leave well enough alone and continue to sign it as SR 1?
The problem with leaving the signs up after relinquishment is enforcement. With local control of the roadway, the City can re-pave as often as needed (just completed excellent re-paving), assign appropriate speed limit, apply truck route restrictions, and eventually add medians and parkway landscaping.
With the CA-1 signs still in place, the Santa Monica PD will have a tough time in court enforcing all local aspects as the signs still indicate State jurisdiction and regulations. The City will soon be adding "TO" trailblazers at the off-ramp and along the stretch of Lincoln. I'll post a sample soon.
Quote from: AndyMax25 on October 04, 2013, 09:57:43 AM
With the CA-1 signs still in place, the Santa Monica PD will have a tough time in court enforcing all local aspects as the signs still indicate State jurisdiction and regulations.
[citation needed]
If this is really a problem, and not something the city is making up, replacing the CALIFORNIA with CITY or SANTA MONICA on the shield would solve it.
Quote from: AndyMax25 on October 04, 2013, 09:57:43 AM
Quote from: NE2 on October 01, 2013, 09:37:09 AM
Why can't they leave well enough alone and continue to sign it as SR 1?
The problem with leaving the signs up after relinquishment is enforcement. With local control of the roadway, the City can re-pave as often as needed (just completed excellent re-paving), assign appropriate speed limit, apply truck route restrictions, and eventually add medians and parkway landscaping.
With the CA-1 signs still in place, the Santa Monica PD will have a tough time in court enforcing all local aspects as the signs still indicate State jurisdiction and regulations. The City will soon be adding "TO" trailblazers at the off-ramp and along the stretch of Lincoln. I'll post a sample soon.
Yeah, I'm not buying that argument. Common sense tells me that local authorities (i.e. city police or county sheriff) can issue citations on any roadway within city or county limits. It doesn't matter who's maintaining said roadway. I've seen local authorities make traffic stops on state highways and I've seen the CHP make stops on non-state highways.
I'm with NE2... leave CA-1 signed as CA-1. It doesn't matter who maintains the roadway.
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 04, 2013, 12:37:03 PMI've seen the CHP make stops on non-state highways.
it helps to note that CHP serves as California's state police.
Quote from: NE2 on October 04, 2013, 12:09:51 PM
If this is really a problem, and not something the city is making up, replacing the CALIFORNIA with CITY or SANTA MONICA on the shield would solve it.
That's an even better idea, so they'll never do it.
what are the official ends of Cal-1 now?
Quote from: silverback1065 on October 04, 2013, 10:36:50 PM
what are the official ends of Cal-1 now?
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=shc&group=00001-01000&file=300-635
Quote from: NE2 on October 04, 2013, 10:39:01 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on October 04, 2013, 10:36:50 PM
what are the official ends of Cal-1 now?
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=shc&group=00001-01000&file=300-635
Thank you NE2
Please note section 301.2.c.1 - "The portion of Route 1 relinquished under this section shall cease to be a state highway." This is why the signs must be removed and avoid any confusion as to which codes (state or local) apply to the roadway. Just like if an freeway is going to be signed as an interstate, it must meet or exceed all interstate specifications (roadway base, curves, signs, etc)
Please note section 301.2.d - "For the portion of Route 1 that is relinquished, the City of Santa Monica shall maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 1." This is why the trailblazers will be installed.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstpeterandstpaul.org%2Fimages%2Fca-1_trailblazer.jpg&hash=31abe29dcc51c382efc0b80f87d02fa6280b50ec)
Quote from: AndyMax25 on October 04, 2013, 11:04:41 PM
Please note section 301.2.c.1 - "The portion of Route 1 relinquished under this section shall cease to be a state highway." This is why the signs must be removed and avoid any confusion as to which codes (state or local) apply to the roadway.
A state highway is a highway maintained by the state. Nothing says a non-state highway cannot be signed as a state
route.
Quote from: AndyMax25 on October 04, 2013, 11:04:41 PM
Just like if an freeway is going to be signed as an interstate, it must meet or exceed all interstate specifications (roadway base, curves, signs, etc)
False. There are probably more grandfathered Interstates that don't meet current standards than up-to-standard Interstates in California.
Quote from: AndyMax25 on October 04, 2013, 11:04:41 PM
Please note section 301.2.d - "For the portion of Route 1 that is relinquished, the City of Santa Monica shall maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 1." This is why the trailblazers will be installed.
As the original signs also directed motorists to the continuation of SR 1, they could have been left in place and maintained.
If you need an example, here's one in Yosemite: https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=37.752634,-119.797594&spn=0.001728,0.003543&gl=us&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=37.752634,-119.797594&panoid=lkio_m28FmxT3DN_FHdUAw&cbp=12,171.71,,1,2.69
This is not part of the definition of SR 120:
Quote420. Route 120 is from:
(a) Route 5 near Mossdale to the west boundary of Yosemite National Park via the vicinity of Manteca and Oakdale, and via Big Oak Flat and Buck Meadows.
(b) The east boundary of Yosemite National Park to Route 395 near Mono Lake.
(c) Route 395 near Mono Lake to Route 6 near Benton Station.
Yet the NPS has no problem signing it as such.
Quote from: NE2 on October 04, 2013, 11:18:37 PM
If you need an example, here's one in Yosemite: https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=37.752634,-119.797594&spn=0.001728,0.003543&gl=us&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=37.752634,-119.797594&panoid=lkio_m28FmxT3DN_FHdUAw&cbp=12,171.71,,1,2.69
This is not part of the definition of SR 120:
Quote420. Route 120 is from:
(a) Route 5 near Mossdale to the west boundary of Yosemite National Park via the vicinity of Manteca and Oakdale, and via Big Oak Flat and Buck Meadows.
(b) The east boundary of Yosemite National Park to Route 395 near Mono Lake.
(c) Route 395 near Mono Lake to Route 6 near Benton Station.
Yet the NPS has no problem signing it as such.
NE2,
Your point is well taken. Believe me, I would have loved to keep the signs up as-is. Unfortunately, the Santa Monica City Attorney and the Police Department's traffic Sergeant do have a problem. Hence the removals.
That still doesn't mean that signs needed to be taken down, rather than just moved down the post with a 'TO' plate added to the top.
Quote from: NE2 on October 04, 2013, 11:48:32 PM
That still doesn't mean that signs needed to be taken down, rather than just moved down the post with a 'TO' plate added to the top.
Then why would Caltrans remove the SR shields from overhead freeway signage for other relinquishment? See this example from I-110 north at the Manchester Ave Exit. SR-42 used to go through this area but it was relinquished many years ago and you can still see the outline of the SR-42 sign.+
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images110/i-110_nb_exit_016_02.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images110/i-110_nb_exit_016_04.jpg)
Because SR 42 was replaced by I-105.
Quote from: NE2 on October 10, 2013, 07:45:36 PM
Because SR 42 was replaced by I-105.
And yet signs on I-405 are still not updated to reflect this.
Quote from: emory on October 10, 2013, 11:57:04 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 10, 2013, 07:45:36 PM
Because SR 42 was replaced by I-105.
And yet signs on I-405 are still not updated to reflect this.
More egregiously, Route 91 signage was added at Artesia Boulevard when retroreflectives were installed (even though 91 has not been signed west of 110 for some time). Not that I'm against it navigationally, but that only works if the actual street retains trailblazers, which isn't the case there.
At some point, will enough of the old U.S. 101A segment of CA-1 be relinquished to warrant removal of its signage? Or will it possibly exist only from Oxnard to the beginning of I-10? Seems like a lot of it is being turned back.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on October 11, 2013, 07:27:57 PM
At some point, will enough of the old U.S. 101A segment of CA-1 be relinquished to warrant removal of its signage? Or will it possibly exist only from Oxnard to the beginning of I-10? Seems like a lot of it is being turned back.
It doesn't even technically reach I-10 anymore. Even with what they've relinquished so far in Santa Monica, Dana Point, and Newport Beach, and with Torrance's section and the rest of Newport Beach's currently being negotiated, that's still just about 100 miles of old US 101A with no plans to be turned over. Certainly not like CA 19, which is on the brink of total deletion.
Quote from: emory on October 12, 2013, 03:04:16 AM
It doesn't even technically reach I-10 anymore.
Isn't the tunnel to the beach still state maintained?
It is possible that CA-1 could be truncated all the way back to Gaviota CA the remainder could just become signed as a historical PCH which then signage would be maintained by the historical society or the cities.
I suppose I don't get it.
Why can't the road be signed as California 1 even if it is maintained by a municipal government?
I know of at least two other states where municipal governments maintain state-numbered highways, yet the signs remain.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 12, 2013, 02:11:13 PM
I suppose I don't get it.
Why can't the road be signed as California 1 even if it is maintained by a municipal government?
I know of at least two other states where municipal governments maintain state-numbered highways, yet the signs remain.
This is being discussed in another thread, and it's something I agree with. The point of signing a route is to provide navigational assistance to the traveler.
I'm all for updating the route definitions to include non-state-maintained segments - something like:
Route 1 is from:
(a) Route 5 in Dana Point to Route 101 near Oxnard.
(1) Route 1 shall be locally maintained within the city of Dana Point.
(2) Route 1 shall be locally maintained within the city of Newport Beach.
(3) Route 1 shall be locally maintained within the city of Santa Monica.
...and so on.
OR
Route 19 is from Route 1 in Long Beach to Route 164 in Pico Rivera via Lakewood and Rosemead Boulevards.
(a) Route 19 shall be locally maintained along the entirety of its route.
Then, add a single statute: something to the effect that says municipalities who locally maintain state routes will do so to a certain standard of road, continue to sign the routes, etc. with the understanding that the road is of regional importance.
Quote from: DTComposer on October 12, 2013, 02:45:28 PM
I'm all for updating the route definitions to include non-state-maintained segments - something like:
Route 1 is from:
(a) Route 5 in Dana Point to Route 101 near Oxnard.
(1) Route 1 shall be locally maintained within the city of Dana Point.
(2) Route 1 shall be locally maintained within the city of Newport Beach.
(3) Route 1 shall be locally maintained within the city of Santa Monica.
...and so on.
OR
Route 19 is from Route 1 in Long Beach to Route 164 in Pico Rivera via Lakewood and Rosemead Boulevards.
(a) Route 19 shall be locally maintained along the entirety of its route.
Then, add a single statute: something to the effect that says municipalities who locally maintain state routes will do so to a certain standard of road, continue to sign the routes, etc. with the understanding that the road is of regional importance.
I am all for that idea as well. I wish that the state of Indiana would do that for its "state roads" as well. Even if it means using a different highway marker. the route signs are used for wayfinding anyway...
Quote from: NE2 on October 04, 2013, 11:18:37 PM
If you need an example, here's one in Yosemite: https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=37.752634,-119.797594&spn=0.001728,0.003543&gl=us&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=37.752634,-119.797594&panoid=lkio_m28FmxT3DN_FHdUAw&cbp=12,171.71,,1,2.69
...why is Tioga Rd marked as a freeway and signed as CA 120 in Google Maps?
(I don't really need an answer to that)
Because Henries: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2001.msg245051#msg245051
Here is a possible better approach to the segments of California 1 that have been removed from the state highway system yet are supposed to be signed for continuity. While looking for something else, I encountered this law from South Dakota:
http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=31-4-3
Quote31-4-3. Inclusion of city streets in system. The Department of Transportation may at its discretion extend the state trunk highway system to include any street or streets within the limits of any first or second class municipality if necessary to make a continuous route for any state trunk highway through the municipality.
Maybe this is a good approach for California?
Regards,
Andy
Quote from: Indyroads on October 12, 2013, 06:15:43 PM
I am all for that idea as well. I wish that the state of Indiana would do that for its "state roads" as well. Even if it means using a different highway marker. the route signs are used for wayfinding anyway...
Maryland and Virginia have long done this. In Virginia, the Commonwealth grants a certain amount of money to cities and towns that maintain state primary highways (route number less than 600) within their borders. In Maryland, the state usually just maintains state signed highways in most municipalities though there are exceptions - nearly all roads within Baltimore City are maintained by the municipal government, and the state grants a very generous annual lump sum payment to Baltimore.
Quote from: DTComposer on October 12, 2013, 02:45:28 PM
This is being discussed in another thread, and it's something I agree with. The point of signing a route is to provide navigational assistance to the traveler.
I'm all for updating the route definitions to include non-state-maintained segments - something like:
Route 1 is from:
(a) Route 5 in Dana Point to Route 101 near Oxnard.
(1) Route 1 shall be locally maintained within the city of Dana Point.
(2) Route 1 shall be locally maintained within the city of Newport Beach.
(3) Route 1 shall be locally maintained within the city of Santa Monica.
...and so on.
OR
Route 19 is from Route 1 in Long Beach to Route 164 in Pico Rivera via Lakewood and Rosemead Boulevards.
(a) Route 19 shall be locally maintained along the entirety of its route.
Then, add a single statute: something to the effect that says municipalities who locally maintain state routes will do so to a certain standard of road, continue to sign the routes, etc. with the understanding that the road is of regional importance.
I would go one step further and require Caltrans to provide
some money to the municipalities that maintain those state roads, probably on a per-lane-mile basis, as long as they are kept up to a certain standard.
I think it's one thing to have scattered segments of a route relinquished to the local city. If Torrance takes control of its portion of CA-1 and it continues to be a state-maintained route in Redondo Beach and Lomita, then it makes sense to use trailblazers in the discontinuous segment to mark the route. If, however, virtually all of a route (CA-19) is relinquished, it makes no sense to mark it as a state highway when it isn't one. You already have perfectly good street names for navigation purposes, and in this instance CA-19 isn't a route that would be followed over a long distance by the vast majority of traffic on it. Although it's long, it's a local road, no different than Rosecrans or Imperial Highway.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 13, 2013, 08:38:13 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on October 12, 2013, 02:45:28 PM
This is being discussed in another thread, and it's something I agree with. The point of signing a route is to provide navigational assistance to the traveler.
I'm all for updating the route definitions to include non-state-maintained segments - something like:
Route 1 is from:
(a) Route 5 in Dana Point to Route 101 near Oxnard.
(1) Route 1 shall be locally maintained within the city of Dana Point.
(2) Route 1 shall be locally maintained within the city of Newport Beach.
(3) Route 1 shall be locally maintained within the city of Santa Monica.
...and so on.
OR
Route 19 is from Route 1 in Long Beach to Route 164 in Pico Rivera via Lakewood and Rosemead Boulevards.
(a) Route 19 shall be locally maintained along the entirety of its route.
Then, add a single statute: something to the effect that says municipalities who locally maintain state routes will do so to a certain standard of road, continue to sign the routes, etc. with the understanding that the road is of regional importance.
I would go one step further and require Caltrans to provide some money to the municipalities that maintain those state roads, probably on a per-lane-mile basis, as long as they are kept up to a certain standard.
The reason for many of these relinquishments is because the local agencies want to make some change to the road that generally would not be done by the State because it is a State highway (traffic calming is a major reason). So it is the locals pushing it, not necessarily Caltrans, in a lot of cases. State law requires that relinquished facilities be presented to the local agencies in a state of good repair, so Caltrans is making a final investment, and then it is up to the locals from there. Because the state is short on funds, it is actually to Caltrans' advantage to relinquish highways. I highly doubt you will ever see Caltrans agree to relinquish a piece of State highway and continue to pay the local agency for it. We have had maintenance agreements with cities where they maintain State highways within their jurisdictions. For example, the City of Sacramento maintained the surface street portions of State Route 160 before Caltrans relinquished it to the city.
The relinquishment of State Route 1 to the City of Santa Monica has presented some challenges when it comes to issuing oversize/overweight vehicle permits, and it may drive some discussion on how to relinquishments should be done. I have heard some of our managers say that they do not like to do piecemeal relinquishments like this because of the system continuity issues it creates, such as what we are seeing with Route 1 and the permits.
Quote from: jrouse on October 14, 2013, 12:34:15 PM
The reason for many of these relinquishments is because the local agencies want to make some change to the road that generally would not be done by the State because it is a State highway (traffic calming is a major reason).
Definitely agree with that. The first thing that happened when California 274/Balboa Ave was decommissioned in 2001 was to spend some of the state's relinquishment money to convert the state highway to San Diego city street standards, which meant installation of more sidewalks, landscaped medians, public art on a chain link fence, and traffic signal modernization. More improvements are desired over time, but the remaining funds are being held to maintain the road and median landscaping.
Regards,
Andy
Quote from: emory on October 10, 2013, 11:57:04 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 10, 2013, 07:45:36 PM
Because SR 42 was replaced by I-105.
And yet signs on I-405 are still not updated to reflect this.
Actually, the new signs along southbound I-405 at the Florence/Manchester exit do reflect this by not having SR 42 shown.
https://maps.google.com/?ll=33.968723,-118.372579&spn=0.011229,0.01929&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=33.968669,-118.372505&panoid=0c2gnk8u0obmaPhHN9-Zng&cbp=12,130.65,,0,-0.4 (https://maps.google.com/?ll=33.968723,-118.372579&spn=0.011229,0.01929&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=33.968669,-118.372505&panoid=0c2gnk8u0obmaPhHN9-Zng&cbp=12,130.65,,0,-0.4)
Quote from: andy3175 on October 16, 2013, 11:50:22 PM
Quote from: jrouse on October 14, 2013, 12:34:15 PM
The reason for many of these relinquishments is because the local agencies want to make some change to the road that generally would not be done by the State because it is a State highway (traffic calming is a major reason).
Definitely agree with that. The first thing that happened when California 274/Balboa Ave was decommissioned in 2001 was to spend some of the state's relinquishment money to convert the state highway to San Diego city street standards, which meant installation of more sidewalks, landscaped medians, public art on a chain link fence, and traffic signal modernization. More improvements are desired over time, but the remaining funds are being held to maintain the road and median landscaping.
Very true, as the City of Santa Monica recently completed a complete pavement resurfacing of Lincoln Blvd. The project also added continental style crosswalks, additional mid-block pedestrian crossing, video detection at the traffic signal intersections, and other non-State standard items. A complete re-visioning of Lincoln Blvd is the next step for City planners.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on October 13, 2013, 10:38:55 PM
I think it's one thing to have scattered segments of a route relinquished to the local city. If Torrance takes control of its portion of CA-1 and it continues to be a state-maintained route in Redondo Beach and Lomita, then it makes sense to use trailblazers in the discontinuous segment to mark the route. If, however, virtually all of a route (CA-19) is relinquished, it makes no sense to mark it as a state highway when it isn't one. You already have perfectly good street names for navigation purposes, and in this instance CA-19 isn't a route that would be followed over a long distance by the vast majority of traffic on it. Although it's long, it's a local road, no different than Rosecrans or Imperial Highway.
That's right. CA-19 is no longer needed. Get rid of the old reference markers. Greenout all CA-19 signs on intersecting freeways. Have parallel long distance drivers take the 605.
On a similar note, here are some other worthless state highways signed in the L.A. area:
CA-213 Western Ave.
CA-107 Hawthorne Blvd.
CA-42 Manchester Ave.
CA-187 Venice Blvd.
CA-170 Highland Avenue section.
CA-2 Alvarado/Santa Monica Blvd. section.
Quote from: mrsman on October 19, 2013, 09:19:54 PM
On a similar note, here are some other worthless state highways signed in the L.A. area:
CA-213 Western Ave.
CA-107 Hawthorne Blvd.
CA-42 Manchester Ave.
CA-187 Venice Blvd.
CA-170 Highland Avenue section.
CA-2 Alvarado/Santa Monica Blvd. section.
Are you speaking from experience or just looking at a map and pronouncing from on high? Because, unless things have changed recently, SR 187 is not signed.
https://www.aaroads.com/california/ca-187.html
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6693.0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/187_%28slang%29
Quote from: mrsman on October 19, 2013, 09:19:54 PM
That's right. CA-19 is no longer needed. Get rid of the old reference markers. Greenout all CA-19 signs on intersecting freeways. Have parallel long distance drivers take the 605.
Don't forget, Rosemead Blvd between Pico Rivera and Temple City is unsigned CA 164. There don't appear to be any plans to either sign it or relinquish it either.
Quote from: mrsman on October 19, 2013, 09:19:54 PMOn a similar note, here are some other worthless state highways signed in the L.A. area:
[..]
CA-42 Manchester Ave.
[...]
CA-2 Alvarado/Santa Monica Blvd. section.
CA 42 was decommissioned years ago, and any signs that are still up need to be removed. Also I don't see CalTrans giving up CA 2's current routing in Echo Park until they find some way to connect the Glendale Freeway to US 101, no matter how many decades it takes.
Quote from: NE2 on October 19, 2013, 09:27:43 PM
Quote from: mrsman on October 19, 2013, 09:19:54 PM
On a similar note, here are some other worthless state highways signed in the L.A. area:
CA-213 Western Ave.
CA-107 Hawthorne Blvd.
CA-42 Manchester Ave.
CA-187 Venice Blvd.
CA-170 Highland Avenue section.
CA-2 Alvarado/Santa Monica Blvd. section.
Are you speaking from experience or just looking at a map and pronouncing from on high? Because, unless things have changed recently, SR 187 is not signed.
https://www.aaroads.com/california/ca-187.html
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6693.0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/187_%28slang%29
To clarify, I only used CA-19 as an example of how I would write a route definition. I agree that its original purpose has been superseded by I-605 and I-405, and therefore is probably not necessary to stay in the state system.
However, I could see something similar happening on CA-39, where Huntington Beach, Garden Grove, Buena Park, etc. take control of maintenance, yet that route has no parallel alternative route (if you're going from Huntington Beach to La Habra, you're gonna take CA-39 rather than trekking over to CA-57 or I-605), so it should remain in the state system.
Quote from: DTComposer on October 20, 2013, 04:03:32 PM
However, I could see something similar happening on CA-39, where Huntington Beach, Garden Grove, Buena Park, etc. take control of maintenance, yet that route has no parallel alternative route (if you're going from Huntington Beach to La Habra, you're gonna take CA-39 rather than trekking over to CA-57 or I-605), so it should remain in the state system.
Or, you could take Beach Blvd.
Just to reinforce my point above that if the state doesn't maintain a road, it shouldn't have a state route number.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on October 20, 2013, 06:50:35 PM
Just to reinforce my point above that if the state doesn't maintain a road, it shouldn't have a state route number.
Opinion, not point.
Quote from: NE2 on October 20, 2013, 09:43:56 PM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on October 20, 2013, 06:50:35 PM
Just to reinforce my point above that if the state doesn't maintain a road, it shouldn't have a state route number.
Opinion, not point.
A point is an opinion.
Quote from: NE2 on October 12, 2013, 03:24:16 AM
Quote from: emory on October 12, 2013, 03:04:16 AM
It doesn't even technically reach I-10 anymore.
Isn't the tunnel to the beach still state maintained?
I was mistaken. The portion of CA 1 that runs along the beach to I-10 is still maintained by CalTrans. Only Lincoln Blvd was relinquished.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on October 20, 2013, 06:50:35 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on October 20, 2013, 04:03:32 PM
However, I could see something similar happening on CA-39, where Huntington Beach, Garden Grove, Buena Park, etc. take control of maintenance, yet that route has no parallel alternative route (if you're going from Huntington Beach to La Habra, you're gonna take CA-39 rather than trekking over to CA-57 or I-605), so it should remain in the state system.
Or, you could take Beach Blvd.
Just to reinforce my point above that if the state doesn't maintain a road, it shouldn't have a state route number.
The only time a state road/state highway/state route number should be maintained post state ownership is in instances where the road designation is needed for route continuity. ala SR-1 is needed because it creates a gap in the highway system. Otherwise it would make sense to remove the route number. This is to prevent disjoined sections of a previously joined roadway.
Another option is that the city of Santa Monica could designate it as City route 1 (coming up with their own highway sheild etc.)
Indiana decommissioned a section of SR-144 south of Greenwood and it has since been signed as CR-144 with the blue pentagon shield. It isn't ideal, but at least it keeps the route contiguous...
Is California the only state that apparently has legal definition of routes entirely different from the actual apparent routes themselves? This is why odd (and incredibly stupid) things like this happen, such as CA-42 still being well-signed in certain areas despite it not actually existing for a long time now, or CA-1 apparently not running through Santa Monica anymore (even though motorists would assume otherwise).
Pretty much agree with just about everyone else here: no one cares who maintains a road, and if anything, routes seemingly disappearing and then reappearing only makes things confusing. I remember having trouble following CA-111 through Palm Springs, because the route seemingly just ended, only to run south again miles later.
Quote from: Quillz on November 11, 2013, 07:30:59 PM
Is California the only state that apparently has legal definition of routes entirely different from the actual apparent routes themselves?
No, but maybe the only one where most of the numbers match (i.e. not Minnesota). I don't know how well Mississippi, South Dakota, or any others that legislatively define their routes do this.
Quote from: Quillz on November 11, 2013, 07:30:59 PM
Is California the only state that apparently has legal definition of routes entirely different from the actual apparent routes themselves? This is why odd (and incredibly stupid) things like this happen, such as CA-42 still being well-signed in certain areas despite it not actually existing for a long time now, or CA-1 apparently not running through Santa Monica anymore (even though motorists would assume otherwise).
Pretty much agree with just about everyone else here: no one cares who maintains a road, and if anything, routes seemingly disappearing and then reappearing only makes things confusing. I remember having trouble following CA-111 through Palm Springs, because the route seemingly just ended, only to run south again miles later.
California's legal definitions of routes include sub-letters noting relinquished portions unless the portions are large enough. Example, route 2's definition:
302. (a) Route 2 is from:
(1) The point where Santa Monica Boulevard crosses the city limits
of Santa Monica at Centinela Avenue to Route 405 in Los Angeles.
(2) The point where Santa Monica Boulevard crosses the city limits
of West Hollywood into the City of Los Angeles at La Brea Avenue to
Route 101 in Los Angeles.
(3) Route 101 in Los Angeles to Route 210 in La Canada-Flintridge
via Glendale.
(4) Route 210 in La Canada-Flintridge to Route 138 via Wrightwood.
Also California's legal definitions of routes also include portions that have yet to be built, and in most cases, never will be built. For example, LA locals know the southern terminus of CA 14 at its intersection with I-5, but its legal definition states its southern terminus is at CA 1 in Santa Monica. Another is I-605, which ends at I-405/CA 22, but is also defined as ending slightly further south at CA 1. As for CA 42 signs that are still up, that's just ignorance.
I still like the idea of keeping the green spade shields, but replacing CALIFORNIA with the city's name.
Quote from: emory on November 12, 2013, 08:37:19 AM
As for CA 42 signs that are still up, that's just ignorance.
But even back in the day they disagreed with the legal definition, which (after 1968) was Route 105.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frumseysid.lunaimaging.com%2Fmrsid%2Fbin%2Fimage_jpeg.pl%3Fclient%3DRumsey%26amp%3Bimage%3DSIDS%2FD5005%2F6354007.sid%26amp%3Bx%3D4500%26amp%3By%3D7000%26amp%3Bwidth%3D750%26amp%3Bheight%3D500%26amp%3Blevel%3D1&hash=d27079290dbe73399c22417ce3c10f953027e325)
from http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239512~5511841:-Verso--State-Highway-Map,-Californ (also note that 42/105 officially ended at I-605)
Continuing on this vein...isn't 91 officially relinquished as a state highway west of 110?
I bring that up because...I've seen at least 4 shields for it west of there, most notably west of 405 (where the newest exit signage for Artesia Boulevard DOES include 91 shields as seen at http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/6975481741/in/set-72157629567436591 for one example).
https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/1455171_10102239715538933_691932275_n.jpg
Route 19 is also an interesting situation in that in some cases, the signage has been scraped off:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/10794984804/ (off I-105)
In other spots, it remains, such as this example from I-5 that exists NORTH of the presently defined route:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/10399632934/in/set-72157636676683316
IIRC, 19 is also signed off of I-405 (south of the present legislative definition).
Quote from: emory on November 12, 2013, 08:37:19 AM
Quote from: Quillz on November 11, 2013, 07:30:59 PM
Is California the only state that apparently has legal definition of routes entirely different from the actual apparent routes themselves? This is why odd (and incredibly stupid) things like this happen, such as CA-42 still being well-signed in certain areas despite it not actually existing for a long time now, or CA-1 apparently not running through Santa Monica anymore (even though motorists would assume otherwise).
Pretty much agree with just about everyone else here: no one cares who maintains a road, and if anything, routes seemingly disappearing and then reappearing only makes things confusing. I remember having trouble following CA-111 through Palm Springs, because the route seemingly just ended, only to run south again miles later.
California's legal definitions of routes include sub-letters noting relinquished portions unless the portions are large enough. Example, route 2's definition:
302. (a) Route 2 is from:
(1) The point where Santa Monica Boulevard crosses the city limits
of Santa Monica at Centinela Avenue to Route 405 in Los Angeles.
(2) The point where Santa Monica Boulevard crosses the city limits
of West Hollywood into the City of Los Angeles at La Brea Avenue to
Route 101 in Los Angeles.
(3) Route 101 in Los Angeles to Route 210 in La Canada-Flintridge
via Glendale.
(4) Route 210 in La Canada-Flintridge to Route 138 via Wrightwood.
Also California's legal definitions of routes also include portions that have yet to be built, and in most cases, never will be built. For example, LA locals know the southern terminus of CA 14 at its intersection with I-5, but its legal definition states its southern terminus is at CA 1 in Santa Monica. Another is I-605, which ends at I-405/CA 22, but is also defined as ending slightly further south at CA 1. As for CA 42 signs that are still up, that's just ignorance.
I still like the idea of keeping the green spade shields, but replacing CALIFORNIA with the city's name.
That would be fine with me. Routes should be signed first and foremost for navigation, and not legal definition. It's the same issue I have with California's bizarre aversion to concurrences: there are instances where CA-1 seems to just disappear when it's officially concurrent with US-101. I can understand the routes that are split by the Sierra Nevada, as they have "implied connections," but then you have other routes, like CA-77 and CA-164, that only exist via sharing the same road as another route.
Quote from: Quillz on November 12, 2013, 04:51:33 PM
but then you have other routes, like CA-77 and CA-164, that only exist via sharing the same road as another route.
Hasn't SR 77 been signed recently, with SR 185 ending where it begins?
112 and 260, on the other hand...
Quote from: NE2 on November 12, 2013, 05:51:35 PM
Quote from: Quillz on November 12, 2013, 04:51:33 PM
but then you have other routes, like CA-77 and CA-164, that only exist via sharing the same road as another route.
Hasn't SR 77 been signed recently, with SR 185 ending where it begins?
One Route 77 shield on that short segment of the High Street freeway spur, IIRC. Given the shortness of what exists as 77, that really should just be folded into 185 officially (with the never-to-be-built 77 removed), but as this entire thread has highlighted, California's emphasis of signing to reflect legislation instead of navigational functionality no doubt has helped keep 77 on the books.
Quote from: NE2 on November 12, 2013, 05:51:35 PM
112 and 260, on the other hand...
112 now has one sign:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/sets/72157629231541792/
(Previously, this had been signed for Route 61)
Was driving down Lincoln Blvd in Santa Monica and noticed these signs had gone up. For once a city actually follows through with the legal requirement!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FKP3mN2W.jpg&hash=04bdeb1b46f4926b1f2c8de63ce02ffd564a2f2a)
I saw those signs on Lincoln Blvd., during a drive yesterday down the PCH from Oxnard to Dana Point.
I looked for similar signs on other relinquished CA 1 segments in Newport Beach and Dana Point. (Those relinquishments, like the one in Santa Monica, are already in effect and hard-wired into the Streets and Highway Code, unlike other relinquishments in the S&H Code which are conditional and may or may not have been carried out.) I didn't see any southbound in either city. Newport Beach had one standard CA 1 sign within its relinquishment zone. I saw what looked like a pair of them in Dana Point just south of Golden Lantern, also on a relinquished segment, but that was at night and I couldn't be sure that there wasn't a "To" banner in that sign assembly.
Are there similar signs on relinquished segments of other routes, such as CA 19?
EDIT: I went back to Dana Point earlier today (Saturday 8/2). The CA 1 markers I saw there look slightly non-standard, with flat bottoms rather than the slight curvature typical of Caltrans state route markers, but they're pretty close, and nothing like in Santa Monica. No "TO" banners.
I also checked out CA 39, another route chopped up by relinquishments. One segment had county route 8 (or N8) markers in place of the former CA 39 markers. Other relinquished segments had no route signage, or just a few standard-looking CA 39 markers with no "TO" banners added.
Quote from: oscar on August 01, 2014, 02:46:02 PM
Are there similar signs on relinquished segments of other routes, such as CA 19?
CA-19 has been removed from new signs within the Los Alamitos Traffic Circle (former terminus of route), however, newer signs on I-405 announcing Lakewood Boulevard do include the CA-19 shield (those signs went up in the last year or so).
There are still reassurance markers along the route at various points in Long Beach and Lakewood.
Why not give it to Santa Monica temporarily, let them do the repaving and improvements with their money, and then take it back once they are done to maintain the highway? :confused:
Quote from: billtm on August 01, 2014, 11:06:45 PM
Why not give it to Santa Monica temporarily, let them do the repaving and improvements with their money, and then take it back once they are done to maintain the highway? :confused:
1. CalTrans has little incentive to take back road maintenance, ESPECIALLY when cities want more control of roads anyway (i.e. Sacramento wanting former Route 160 under their control so they could match the streetlights to city standards, rather than what CalTrans would be using for state routes)
2. Relinquishment is generally permanent.
Quote from: TheStranger on August 02, 2014, 07:05:11 PM
Quote from: billtm on August 01, 2014, 11:06:45 PM
Why not give it to Santa Monica temporarily, let them do the repaving and improvements with their money, and then take it back once they are done to maintain the highway? :confused:
1. CalTrans has little incentive to take back road maintenance, ESPECIALLY when cities want more control of roads anyway (i.e. Sacramento wanting former Route 160 under their control so they could match the streetlights to city standards, rather than what CalTrans would be using for state routes)
2. Relinquishment is generally permanent.
Has there ever been a situation where this has happened? A decommissioning of a state road then years later a recommissioning of the old alignment?
Quote from: silverback1065 on August 03, 2014, 12:28:52 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 02, 2014, 07:05:11 PM
Quote from: billtm on August 01, 2014, 11:06:45 PM
Why not give it to Santa Monica temporarily, let them do the repaving and improvements with their money, and then take it back once they are done to maintain the highway? :confused:
1. CalTrans has little incentive to take back road maintenance, ESPECIALLY when cities want more control of roads anyway (i.e. Sacramento wanting former Route 160 under their control so they could match the streetlights to city standards, rather than what CalTrans would be using for state routes)
2. Relinquishment is generally permanent.
Has there ever been a situation where this has happened? A decommissioning of a state road then years later a recommissioning of the old alignment?
I can think of one (that doesn't fall quite under the same category as, say, the examples brought up in this thread - the newer ones of which have specific "state cannot regain control of the road maintenance" clauses added in):
Route 58 in Santa Margarita runs along a former alignment of US 101 which was bypassed decades ago, but then was added onto the newly created 58 in the midst of the 1964 renumbering.
But I'd have to verify this via old maps to see if there really was a period where that road was unnumbered and not state maintained.
It wasn't ever relinquished. It was just added to then State 178 (LRN 58) and removed from LRN 2 (US 101). There are many instances of this throughout the state where a bypass has been built around a former State Highway junction. US 80 / State 79 come to mind - 79 now has L mileage from Route 8 to the Old Hwy 80 / Route 79 Junction reflecting this.
Quote from: sdmichael on August 03, 2014, 04:30:59 AM
It wasn't ever relinquished. It was just added to then State 178 (LRN 58) and removed from LRN 2 (US 101). There are many instances of this throughout the state where a bypass has been built around a former State Highway junction. US 80 / State 79 come to mind - 79 now has L mileage from Route 8 to the Old Hwy 80 / Route 79 Junction reflecting this.
I agree with sdmichael and would add that usually whenever a state highway in California ends at another state highway, if the other state highway is realigned, the first state highway's terminus is usually repositioned to connect to the other state highway's new alignment. This is typically accomplished using the means sdmichael mentioned for both SR 79's southern terminus and SR 58's western terminus.
Of course there are exceptions to this; I'm sure The Stranger could tell us about what happened to SR 193's western terminus when SR 65 was realigned out of downtown Lincoln.
Quote from: silverback1065 on August 03, 2014, 12:28:52 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 02, 2014, 07:05:11 PM
Quote from: billtm on August 01, 2014, 11:06:45 PM
Why not give it to Santa Monica temporarily, let them do the repaving and improvements with their money, and then take it back once they are done to maintain the highway? :confused:
1. CalTrans has little incentive to take back road maintenance, ESPECIALLY when cities want more control of roads anyway (i.e. Sacramento wanting former Route 160 under their control so they could match the streetlights to city standards, rather than what CalTrans would be using for state routes)
2. Relinquishment is generally permanent.
Has there ever been a situation where this has happened? A decommissioning of a state road then years later a recommissioning of the old alignment?
Section 81 of the Streets and Highways Code prevents the state from taking back relinquished roads.
Quote from: andy3175 on August 04, 2014, 12:53:31 AM
Of course there are exceptions to this; I'm sure The Stranger could tell us about what happened to SR 193's western terminus when SR 65 was realigned out of downtown Lincoln.
I recall that 193 now ends at the Lincoln city limit, without having been ever extended onto old Route 65/old US 99E, or without taking a new alignment (say, Ferrari Ranch Road) to the Lincoln bypass.
Similar thing happened to Route 83 after the interchange for it from 210 was nixed: the route definition was eventually changed to cut the route further south, if I'm not mistaken.
Quote from: emory on August 04, 2014, 02:01:21 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on August 03, 2014, 12:28:52 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 02, 2014, 07:05:11 PM
Quote from: billtm on August 01, 2014, 11:06:45 PM
Why not give it to Santa Monica temporarily, let them do the repaving and improvements with their money, and then take it back once they are done to maintain the highway? :confused:
1. CalTrans has little incentive to take back road maintenance, ESPECIALLY when cities want more control of roads anyway (i.e. Sacramento wanting former Route 160 under their control so they could match the streetlights to city standards, rather than what CalTrans would be using for state routes)
2. Relinquishment is generally permanent.
Has there ever been a situation where this has happened? A decommissioning of a state road then years later a recommissioning of the old alignment?
Section 81 of the Streets and Highways Code prevents the state from taking back relinquished roads.
Well that's stupid. :-|
Quote from: TheStranger on August 04, 2014, 02:04:38 AM
Similar thing happened to Route 83 after the interchange for it from 210 was nixed: the route definition was eventually changed to cut the route further south, if I'm not mistaken.
You're right; Section 383 of the California Streets and Highways Code states: "383. (a) Route 83 is from Route 71 to Route 10 near Upland." The rest of the route from that point north to SR 210 is no longer state highway and ineligible for adoption per Section 383(b), which states: "(b) The relinquished former portion of Route 83 within the City of
Upland is not a state highway and is not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the relinquished former portion of Route 83, the City of Upland shall ensure the continuity of traffic flow, including any traffic signal progression, and maintain signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 83." All of SR 83 between I-10 and SR 210 is within the city of Upland, so Upland must have negotiated to take over the former route. I wonder if any SR 83 signs are posted along Euclid Avenue between I-10 and SR 210? Google Maps still shows it signed, for whatever that's worth.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=shc&group=00001-01000&file=300-635
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Upland,+CA&hl=en&ll=34.109388,-117.647095&spn=0.083146,0.169086&sll=32.824552,-117.108978&sspn=0.6751,1.352692&oq=upland+&t=h&hnear=Upland,+San+Bernardino+County,+California&z=13
Speaking of definitions, I do wish the state would just go through the SHC and clean house of any route definitions that they have no plan on constructing ever. For example, Route 170's definition is still "(1) Los Angeles International Airport to Route 90. (2) Route 101 near Riverside Drive to Route 5 near Tujunga Wash." even though the two are separated and the Laurel Canyon Freeway was abandoned ages ago. Route 65's definition still contains "(b) Route 198 near Exeter to Route 80 near Roseville on a route along the easterly side of the San Joaquin Valley, which route may include all or portions of any existing state highway route." but they're never going to build the East Side Freeway. It must be amusing for travelers on that road in Roseville to start at EXIT 306.
Speaking of relinquishment, the CA 1 shield on NB 101 in Oxnard has been greened out. Has PCH officially been moved to the Rice Avenue corridor yet?
Quote from: JustDrive on August 08, 2014, 10:45:26 AM
Speaking of relinquishment, the CA 1 shield on NB 101 in Oxnard has been greened out. Has PCH officially been moved to the Rice Avenue corridor yet?
I drove Rice Avenue Thursday of last week (approaching it from NB 101 then continuing to and turning around at the Rose Avenue exit -- so I didn't see how the Oxnard Blvd. exit was signed). There was no CA 1 signage in either direction on US 101 at the Rice Avenue exit, or on SB Rice Avenue south to the PCH interchange. I don't recall signage at that interchange indicating PCH/Oxnard Blvd. NB was part of CA 1, just pointing me to CA 1 on the southbound PCH.
Maybe the changeover is in progress. 'Bout time.
Quote from: emory on August 08, 2014, 12:24:30 AM
Speaking of definitions, I do wish the state would just go through the SHC and clean house of any route definitions that they have no plan on constructing ever. For example, Route 170's definition is still "(1) Los Angeles International Airport to Route 90. (2) Route 101 near Riverside Drive to Route 5 near Tujunga Wash." even though the two are separated and the Laurel Canyon Freeway was abandoned ages ago. Route 65's definition still contains "(b) Route 198 near Exeter to Route 80 near Roseville on a route along the easterly side of the San Joaquin Valley, which route may include all or portions of any existing state highway route." but they're never going to build the East Side Freeway. It must be amusing for travelers on that road in Roseville to start at EXIT 306.
Route 65 is still on actual long-term plans (which means nothing as far as getting anything built is concerned, but certainly is in a much more realistic state of possibility than 170 south of 101!) from the last few years.
IMO the legislative-run system of route numbering is exactly why absurdities such as 77, 112, 260, and (ugh) 164 remain, even though all four were/are signed as parts of other routes (not as true lately for 77 or 112).
Quote from: oscar on August 08, 2014, 11:19:00 AM
Quote from: JustDrive on August 08, 2014, 10:45:26 AM
Speaking of relinquishment, the CA 1 shield on NB 101 in Oxnard has been greened out. Has PCH officially been moved to the Rice Avenue corridor yet?
I drove Rice Avenue Thursday of last week (approaching it from NB 101 then continuing to and turning around at the Rose Avenue exit -- so I didn't see how the Oxnard Blvd. exit was signed). There was no CA 1 signage in either direction on US 101 at the Rice Avenue exit, or on SB Rice Avenue south to the PCH interchange. I don't recall signage at that interchange indicating PCH/Oxnard Blvd. NB was part of CA 1, just pointing me to CA 1 on the southbound PCH.
Maybe the changeover is in progress. 'Bout time.
We were there a few months ago. Even with new signage on the Ventura Freeway, Oxnard Blvd is still signed as CA 1.
Mod Note: Fixed quoting. Please make sure to reply below quoted material or edit nested quotes appropriately. Thanks! --roadfro
Quote from: andy3175 on August 04, 2014, 11:54:02 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 04, 2014, 02:04:38 AM
Similar thing happened to Route 83 after the interchange for it from 210 was nixed: the route definition was eventually changed to cut the route further south, if I'm not mistaken.
You're right; Section 383 of the California Streets and Highways Code states: "383. (a) Route 83 is from Route 71 to Route 10 near Upland." The rest of the route from that point north to SR 210 is no longer state highway and ineligible for adoption per Section 383(b), which states: "(b) The relinquished former portion of Route 83 within the City of
Upland is not a state highway and is not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the relinquished former portion of Route 83, the City of Upland shall ensure the continuity of traffic flow, including any traffic signal progression, and maintain signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 83." All of SR 83 between I-10 and SR 210 is within the city of Upland, so Upland must have negotiated to take over the former route. I wonder if any SR 83 signs are posted along Euclid Avenue between I-10 and SR 210? Google Maps still shows it signed, for whatever that's worth.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=shc&group=00001-01000&file=300-635
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Upland,+CA&hl=en&ll=34.109388,-117.647095&spn=0.083146,0.169086&sll=32.824552,-117.108978&sspn=0.6751,1.352692&oq=upland+&t=h&hnear=Upland,+San+Bernardino+County,+California&z=13
Does anybody know why the 210 interchange at Euclid was nixed? It seems to me that Eucllid was a much more major street than Campus, especially before the 210 was extended to Upland. I see that Campus is now a 2 lane in each direction street, but I remember when Campus was only one lane in each direction, even north of Foothill Blvd.
Quote from: mrsman on August 13, 2014, 12:40:48 AM
Quote from: andy3175 on August 04, 2014, 11:54:02 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 04, 2014, 02:04:38 AM
Similar thing happened to Route 83 after the interchange for it from 210 was nixed: the route definition was eventually changed to cut the route further south, if I'm not mistaken.
You're right; Section 383 of the California Streets and Highways Code states: "383. (a) Route 83 is from Route 71 to Route 10 near Upland." The rest of the route from that point north to SR 210 is no longer state highway and ineligible for adoption per Section 383(b), which states: "(b) The relinquished former portion of Route 83 within the City of
Upland is not a state highway and is not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the relinquished former portion of Route 83, the City of Upland shall ensure the continuity of traffic flow, including any traffic signal progression, and maintain signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 83." All of SR 83 between I-10 and SR 210 is within the city of Upland, so Upland must have negotiated to take over the former route. I wonder if any SR 83 signs are posted along Euclid Avenue between I-10 and SR 210? Google Maps still shows it signed, for whatever that's worth.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=shc&group=00001-01000&file=300-635
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Upland,+CA&hl=en&ll=34.109388,-117.647095&spn=0.083146,0.169086&sll=32.824552,-117.108978&sspn=0.6751,1.352692&oq=upland+&t=h&hnear=Upland,+San+Bernardino+County,+California&z=13
Does anybody know why the 210 interchange at Euclid was nixed? It seems to me that Eucllid was a much more major street than Campus, especially before the 210 was extended to Upland. I see that Campus is now a 2 lane in each direction street, but I remember when Campus was only one lane in each direction, even north of Foothill Blvd.
My understanding was that the locals wanted to keep 83 from connecting to 210 directly as a traffic control measure, and they built a cut and cover tunnel at the Euclid overpass with park deck, etc. on top.