I'm continuing to work on the highway pages, going through legislative stuff now. In addition to discovering that it is now considered to be running a red light if you run the red on a ramp meter (see http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1094 ), the legislation on Route 14U passed:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares that when the Antelope Valley Freeway, State Route 14, was constructed through what is now the City of Santa Clarita, the Department of Transportation retained ownership of, and maintenance responsibility for, a portion of the conventional highway that the freeway replaced, Sierra Highway, also known as Route 14U, rather than relinquishing the highway to the County of Los Angeles. The Legislature further finds and declares that the City of Santa Clarita is now interested in assuming ownership of, and maintenance responsibility for, the portion of Sierra Highway approximately between the intersection of Newhall Avenue and the intersection of Friendly Valley Parkway within the city limits of the city, from the Department of Transportation.
SEC. 2. Section 314.1 is added to the Streets and Highways Code, to read:
314.1. (a) The commission may relinquish to the City of Santa Clarita all or any portion of Sierra Highway, also known as Route 14U, located within the city limits of that city, upon terms and conditions the commission finds to be in the best interests of the state, if the department and the city enter into an agreement providing for that relinquishment.
(b) A relinquishment under this section shall become effective immediately after the county recorder's recordation of the relinquishment resolution containing the commission's approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment.
(c) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, both of the following shall occur:
(1) The portion of Route 14U relinquished shall cease to be a state highway.
(2) The portion of Route 14U relinquished shall be ineligible for future adoption under Section 81.
Weird that 14U has hung on as long as it has. Speaking of Unrelinquished routes I did happen to find a couple of CA 180 post markers on Kings Canyon Road between Sunnyside Avenue and Temperance Avenue. It would seem that the the post markers are located on a part of Kings Canyon Road located in a county island outside of the city limits of Fresno:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4446/37513009826_b9faa72aa6_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Z9TYTu)180CAa (https://flic.kr/p/Z9TYTu) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4463/36932593874_fa18f6d600_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/YgBcrU)IMG_8028 (https://flic.kr/p/YgBcrU) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Fresno,+CA/@36.7415824,-119.7423896,13z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x80945de1549e4e9d:0x7b12406449a3b811!8m2!3d36.7468422!4d-119.7725868?hl=en
Remember that postmile tool I told you about? If they are a 180U segment, they'll show on that tool.
Quote from: cahwyguy on December 27, 2017, 12:53:09 AM
Remember that postmile tool I told you about? If they are a 180U segment, they'll show on that tool.
Just saw that when I was responding to your email. It would seems they aren't a 180U segment, both searches show segments of the current 180 freeway to the north. Your 180 stub had that particular segment relinquished back 2011 at least within the Fresno City limits. It would seem that Fresno County hasn't gotten around to yanking the postmile markers for whatever reason.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 27, 2017, 12:19:39 AM
Weird that 14U has hung on as long as it has.
It seems the city of Santa Clarita has, up until this time, had little or no incentive to assume ownership of that portion of Sierra Highway but rather to let Caltrans perform any necessary maintenance on
their dime. The one thing that would likely alter that situation was if some sort of development along that road, considered beneficial by and to Santa Clarita, were to necessitate some change in the alignment or physical configuration of Sierra Highway/14U, in which case the tables would be turned, as Caltrans might show reluctance to program a significant expenditure on a section of highway it clearly deems superfluous, putting the ball squarely in the city's court re ownership of the street.
Having said that, I'm sure there are board contributors that wouldn't mind acquiring one of the "14U" shields; it certainly would be a unique addition to anyone's collection!
Quote from: cahwyguy on December 27, 2017, 12:53:09 AM
Remember that postmile tool I told you about? If they are a 180U segment, they'll show on that tool.
It also shows at least one other U route, 8U (part of Business I-8) across the river from Yuma AZ.
Quote from: sparker on December 27, 2017, 01:32:15 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 27, 2017, 12:19:39 AM
Weird that 14U has hung on as long as it has.
It seems the city of Santa Clarita has, up until this time, had little or no incentive to assume ownership of that portion of Sierra Highway but rather to let Caltrans perform any necessary maintenance on their dime. The one thing that would likely alter that situation was if some sort of development along that road, considered beneficial by and to Santa Clarita, were to necessitate some change in the alignment or physical configuration of Sierra Highway/14U, in which case the tables would be turned, as Caltrans might show reluctance to program a significant expenditure on a section of highway it clearly deems superfluous, putting the ball squarely in the city's court re ownership of the street.
Having said that, I'm sure there are board contributors that wouldn't mind acquiring one of the "14U" shields; it certainly would be a unique addition to anyone's collection!
I might be one considering it certainly has "oddity" value to it. I wouldn't over pay for something like that though, I have a feeling a lot of collectors.
Does the U signify that it is unposted?
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on December 27, 2017, 02:16:49 PM
Does the U signify that it is unposted?
14U is posted in at least one place...
https://goo.gl/maps/LK25kgNRVfC2
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 27, 2017, 02:38:32 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on December 27, 2017, 02:16:49 PM
Does the U signify that it is unposted?
14U is posted in at least one place...
https://goo.gl/maps/LK25kgNRVfC2
That is uncharacteristic for California.
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 27, 2017, 02:38:32 PM
14U is posted in at least one place...
https://goo.gl/maps/LK25kgNRVfC2
(Haven't we had this discussion before?)
There's another 14U shield just a little bit to the north from there.
GSV here. (https://goo.gl/maps/gx8vBEpCsu22)
Quote from: kphoger on December 28, 2017, 10:35:06 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 27, 2017, 02:38:32 PM
14U is posted in at least one place...
https://goo.gl/maps/LK25kgNRVfC2
(Haven't we had this discussion before?)
There's another 14U shield just a little bit to the north from there.
GSV here. (https://goo.gl/maps/gx8vBEpCsu22)
It's popped up a couple times in threads but this really is the legislation that "in theory" should start pushing 14U towards being turned over. The absurd part is that 14U is really honestly better Signed than a lot of SoCal State Highways.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 28, 2017, 12:17:20 PM
The absurd part is that 14U is really honestly better Signed than a lot of SoCal State Highways.
Ain't that the truth!!!!! :ded: :banghead: Applies to Northern California as well.
Quote from: sparker on December 28, 2017, 06:45:35 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 28, 2017, 12:17:20 PM
The absurd part is that 14U is really honestly better Signed than a lot of SoCal State Highways.
Ain't that the truth!!!!! :ded: :banghead: Applies to Northern California as well.
This might not be true anymore in 2014, but throughout the 2000s when I either biked along or drive Route 128 west of Winters, there was pretty much almost no shield signage whatsoever. Same deal I recall a few years back for Route 18 between Route 138 in Palmdale and US 395.
And then meanwhile...Route 14U. LOL
Quote from: TheStranger on December 29, 2017, 02:27:37 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 28, 2017, 06:45:35 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 28, 2017, 12:17:20 PM
The absurd part is that 14U is really honestly better Signed than a lot of SoCal State Highways.
Ain't that the truth!!!!! :ded: :banghead: Applies to Northern California as well.
This might not be true anymore in 2014, but throughout the 2000s when I either biked along or drive Route 128 west of Winters, there was pretty much almost no shield signage whatsoever. Same deal I recall a few years back for Route 18 between Route 138 in Palmdale and US 395.
And then meanwhile...Route 14U. LOL
Try CA 238 from Hayward south to I-680: sparse signage (a few mileposts, though), even at the CA 84 junction which, of course, "jogs" for a few blocks over 238. CA 84 itself
is signed -- but you have to keep your eyes out for roadside SGS's that indicate the various twists and turns that route takes across Fremont (District 4 seems to have forgotten how to deploy shields!). I guess they can't shed surface streets fast enough; CA 185 looks like it may be history soon!
Quote from: sparker on December 29, 2017, 03:13:44 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on December 29, 2017, 02:27:37 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 28, 2017, 06:45:35 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 28, 2017, 12:17:20 PM
The absurd part is that 14U is really honestly better Signed than a lot of SoCal State Highways.
Ain't that the truth!!!!! :ded: :banghead: Applies to Northern California as well.
This might not be true anymore in 2014, but throughout the 2000s when I either biked along or drive Route 128 west of Winters, there was pretty much almost no shield signage whatsoever. Same deal I recall a few years back for Route 18 between Route 138 in Palmdale and US 395.
And then meanwhile...Route 14U. LOL
Try CA 238 from Hayward south to I-680: sparse signage (a few mileposts, though), even at the CA 84 junction which, of course, "jogs" for a few blocks over 238. CA 84 itself is signed -- but you have to keep your eyes out for roadside SGS's that indicate the various twists and turns that route takes across Fremont (District 4 seems to have forgotten how to deploy shields!). I guess they can't shed surface streets fast enough; CA 185 looks like it may be history soon!
Worse....try CA 130, good luck finding a shield off freeway in San Jose.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 29, 2017, 04:39:52 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 29, 2017, 03:13:44 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on December 29, 2017, 02:27:37 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 28, 2017, 06:45:35 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 28, 2017, 12:17:20 PM
The absurd part is that 14U is really honestly better Signed than a lot of SoCal State Highways.
Ain't that the truth!!!!! :ded: :banghead: Applies to Northern California as well.
This might not be true anymore in 2014, but throughout the 2000s when I either biked along or drive Route 128 west of Winters, there was pretty much almost no shield signage whatsoever. Same deal I recall a few years back for Route 18 between Route 138 in Palmdale and US 395.
And then meanwhile...Route 14U. LOL
Try CA 238 from Hayward south to I-680: sparse signage (a few mileposts, though), even at the CA 84 junction which, of course, "jogs" for a few blocks over 238. CA 84 itself is signed -- but you have to keep your eyes out for roadside SGS's that indicate the various twists and turns that route takes across Fremont (District 4 seems to have forgotten how to deploy shields!). I guess they can't shed surface streets fast enough; CA 185 looks like it may be history soon!
Worse....try CA 130, good luck finding a shield off freeway in San Jose.
Hasn't 130 been relinquished within the city limits?
SAMSUNG-SM-J327A
Quote from: TheStranger on December 29, 2017, 04:44:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 29, 2017, 04:39:52 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 29, 2017, 03:13:44 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on December 29, 2017, 02:27:37 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 28, 2017, 06:45:35 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 28, 2017, 12:17:20 PM
The absurd part is that 14U is really honestly better Signed than a lot of SoCal State Highways.
Ain't that the truth!!!!! :ded: :banghead: Applies to Northern California as well.
This might not be true anymore in 2014, but throughout the 2000s when I either biked along or drive Route 128 west of Winters, there was pretty much almost no shield signage whatsoever. Same deal I recall a few years back for Route 18 between Route 138 in Palmdale and US 395.
And then meanwhile...Route 14U. LOL
Try CA 238 from Hayward south to I-680: sparse signage (a few mileposts, though), even at the CA 84 junction which, of course, "jogs" for a few blocks over 238. CA 84 itself is signed -- but you have to keep your eyes out for roadside SGS's that indicate the various twists and turns that route takes across Fremont (District 4 seems to have forgotten how to deploy shields!). I guess they can't shed surface streets fast enough; CA 185 looks like it may be history soon!
Worse....try CA 130, good luck finding a shield off freeway in San Jose.
Hasn't 130 been relinquished within the city limits?
SAMSUNG-SM-J327A
Yes -- and San Jose's
de facto policy is to discourage through traffic on city streets -- even arterials -- so the chance of seeing CA 130 (or even "TO 130") signage of any sort along Alum Rock is slim & none.
Quote from: sparker on December 29, 2017, 05:02:49 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on December 29, 2017, 04:44:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 29, 2017, 04:39:52 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 29, 2017, 03:13:44 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on December 29, 2017, 02:27:37 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 28, 2017, 06:45:35 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 28, 2017, 12:17:20 PM
The absurd part is that 14U is really honestly better Signed than a lot of SoCal State Highways.
Ain't that the truth!!!!! :ded: :banghead: Applies to Northern California as well.
This might not be true anymore in 2014, but throughout the 2000s when I either biked along or drive Route 128 west of Winters, there was pretty much almost no shield signage whatsoever. Same deal I recall a few years back for Route 18 between Route 138 in Palmdale and US 395.
And then meanwhile...Route 14U. LOL
Try CA 238 from Hayward south to I-680: sparse signage (a few mileposts, though), even at the CA 84 junction which, of course, "jogs" for a few blocks over 238. CA 84 itself is signed -- but you have to keep your eyes out for roadside SGS's that indicate the various twists and turns that route takes across Fremont (District 4 seems to have forgotten how to deploy shields!). I guess they can't shed surface streets fast enough; CA 185 looks like it may be history soon!
Worse....try CA 130, good luck finding a shield off freeway in San Jose.
Hasn't 130 been relinquished within the city limits?
SAMSUNG-SM-J327A
Yes -- and San Jose's de facto policy is to discourage through traffic on city streets -- even arterials -- so the chance of seeing CA 130 (or even "TO 130") signage of any sort along Alum Rock is slim & none.
Come to think of it, the only surface street state route left in SJ is...Route 82 north of 880.
SAMSUNG-SM-J327A
Quote from: TheStranger on December 29, 2017, 05:04:40 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 29, 2017, 05:02:49 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on December 29, 2017, 04:44:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 29, 2017, 04:39:52 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 29, 2017, 03:13:44 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on December 29, 2017, 02:27:37 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 28, 2017, 06:45:35 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 28, 2017, 12:17:20 PM
The absurd part is that 14U is really honestly better Signed than a lot of SoCal State Highways.
Ain't that the truth!!!!! :ded: :banghead: Applies to Northern California as well.
This might not be true anymore in 2014, but throughout the 2000s when I either biked along or drive Route 128 west of Winters, there was pretty much almost no shield signage whatsoever. Same deal I recall a few years back for Route 18 between Route 138 in Palmdale and US 395.
And then meanwhile...Route 14U. LOL
Try CA 238 from Hayward south to I-680: sparse signage (a few mileposts, though), even at the CA 84 junction which, of course, "jogs" for a few blocks over 238. CA 84 itself is signed -- but you have to keep your eyes out for roadside SGS's that indicate the various twists and turns that route takes across Fremont (District 4 seems to have forgotten how to deploy shields!). I guess they can't shed surface streets fast enough; CA 185 looks like it may be history soon!
Worse....try CA 130, good luck finding a shield off freeway in San Jose.
Hasn't 130 been relinquished within the city limits?
SAMSUNG-SM-J327A
Yes -- and San Jose's de facto policy is to discourage through traffic on city streets -- even arterials -- so the chance of seeing CA 130 (or even "TO 130") signage of any sort along Alum Rock is slim & none.
Come to think of it, the only surface street state route left in SJ is...Route 82 north of 880.
SAMSUNG-SM-J327A
Given that whole "route discourage" thing on surface streets in San Jose it makes me wonder if that's why my construction 130 did have any bolt wholes in the vinyl when I acquired it last year:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4262/35196068450_48a46e30d9_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/VCa3Wo)IMG_1217 (https://flic.kr/p/VCa3Wo) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Incidentally it makes you wonder....how does District 4 have the best looking construction shields in the state but likely the worst if not one of the worst regular signage standards in all of Caltrans?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 29, 2017, 05:18:36 PM
Yes -- and San Jose's de facto policy is to discourage through traffic on city streets -- even arterials -- so the chance of seeing CA 130 (or even "TO 130") signage of any sort along Alum Rock is slim & none.
GMSV shows no CA 130 route markers until the turnoff to Mt. Hamilton Rd., which is well within the part of the route not relinquished to San Jose. And not even "TO CA 130" markers on the freeways, to point travelers to Mt. Hamilton.
Quote from: oscar on December 29, 2017, 05:48:30 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 29, 2017, 05:18:36 PM
Yes -- and San Jose's de facto policy is to discourage through traffic on city streets -- even arterials -- so the chance of seeing CA 130 (or even "TO 130") signage of any sort along Alum Rock is slim & none.
GMSV shows no CA 130 route markers until the turnoff to Mt. Hamilton Rd., which is well within the part of the route not relinquished to San Jose. And not even "TO CA 130" markers on the freeways, to point travelers to Mt. Hamilton.
Its even worse westbound from Mount Hamilton. I'm fairly certain the only "official" shield was at the Lick Observatory. Granted there are several county made shields east of Lick, but that isn't part of CA 130 on the books.
Quote from: sparker on December 29, 2017, 03:13:44 PM
CA 185 looks like it may be history soon!
If you look at my changes post, the relinquishment bill for 185 passed.
AB 333 (Quirk) State Highway Route 185: relinquishment: County of Alameda.
Existing law authorizes the commission to relinquish all or a portion of Route 185 in the City of Hayward to the city, as specified.
This bill would additionally authorize the commission to relinquish all or a portion of Route 185 in the unincorporated area of the County of Alameda to that county, as specified.
09/28/17 Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 339, Statutes of 2017.
Then, if you look at what I captured from the CTC minutes, they've already relinquished it:
04-Ala-185-PM 0.4/0.9 Right of way on Route 185 from "˜A' Street to the Hayward City Limits at Rose Street, in the city of Hayward.
04-Ala-238-PM 7.8/9.3 Right of way on Route 238 from the Hayward City Limits to Industrial Parkway, in the city of Hayward.
THis is what you can find if you look at the changes I post :-)
Interesting that the relinquishment of CA 185 only applies to the city of Hayward and unincorporated Alameda County. I'll bet that San Leandro and Oakland are as of yet reluctant to take over maintenance of the 185 alignment -- also, unsigned CA 112 (sporadically signed as CA 61) terminates at CA 185 in downtown San Leandro, and Caltrans seems to prefer relinquishing everything within a specific city (except for massive ones such as L.A.!) in one fell swoop. Chances are San Leandro's position re relinquishment applies to both those surface highways within their jurisdiction (along with the small portion of actual CA 61 inside the city limits). And Oakland probably just doesn't want the expense of maintaining East 14th Street (185).
So does Caltrans typically relinquish maintenance of any route that passes through a city limit to that city?
Normally, only if the city requests the relinquishment. Then a bill is passed to authorize it, then there is improvement made so it is at a maintenance point that the city will financially take it. It actually can be a multiyear process. Look at my pages to see how long. Route 2 is probably a good example -- that was the first such relinquishment like that I recall.
Quote from: sparker on December 30, 2017, 12:50:17 AM
Interesting that the relinquishment of CA 185 only applies to the city of Hayward and unincorporated Alameda County. I'll bet that San Leandro and Oakland are as of yet reluctant to take over maintenance of the 185 alignment -- also, unsigned CA 112 (sporadically signed as CA 61) terminates at CA 185 in downtown San Leandro, and Caltrans seems to prefer relinquishing everything within a specific city (except for massive ones such as L.A.!) in one fell swoop. Chances are San Leandro's position re relinquishment applies to both those surface highways within their jurisdiction (along with the small portion of actual CA 61 inside the city limits). And Oakland probably just doesn't want the expense of maintaining East 14th Street (185).
Often, it isn't only the expense. When a city wants to do some major development or traffic changes, they want control. With Caltrans control, they have to go to the CTC for almost every street connection. I remember that being a issue ages ago when SDC (a company long gone) wanted to build a building at 3000 Olympic, back when Olympic was SSR 26.
Quote from: roadguy2 on December 30, 2017, 01:13:42 AM
So does Caltrans typically relinquish maintenance of any route that passes through a city limit to that city?
In regards to larger cities, they certainly seem to be trying to do so. Whether they're successful depends upon whether a particular city wishes to take over maintenance of the roadway (obviously adding to city expenditures); often, if the city wants to modify or alter the roads' configuration outside state highway parameters (road diets, landscaping, etc.) they'll petition Caltrans for relinquishment. Of course, this assumes the city has not only the revenues to assume maintenance but also to undertake the modifications. In the case of both 185 and 238, Hayward apparently is willing and able to satisfy both criteria (they assumed partial ownership of the connecting CA 92 several years ago) in order to alter traffic patterns in their downtown district (creating a one-way couplet out of what was 185 (now SB) and 238 (NB) north of the former junction. Hayward has been accumulating revenues in the last several years from development of major industrial parks west of I-880 and north and south of CA 92; they seem to have better cash flow than some of their neighbors, including San Lorenzo to the northwest and San Leandro to the north; both have essentially "maxed out" their developable area and are hemmed in by other cities and Oakland Airport to the west. Expending funds to maintain streets now under the parvenu of Caltrans just isn't in the cards for the time being, so the state highways still use city arterials within their limits. With the Hayward and county relinquishments, CA 185 effectively terminates (SB) at/near I-238.
Quote from: sparker on December 30, 2017, 01:30:20 AM
With the Hayward and county relinquishments, CA 185 effectively terminates (SB) at/near I-238.
And yet, they don't modify the route definition to catch up with the relinquishments, seemingly creating the potential for a new and different routing if the need ever arises. One of these days, a "cleaning of the codes" bill needs to catch up the legislative definitions with the relinquishments. (It also results in the situations -- again, Route 2 is a good example -- where relinquishment words get dropped in dueling bills.)
Quote from: sparker on December 30, 2017, 01:30:20 AM
Quote from: roadguy2 on December 30, 2017, 01:13:42 AM
So does Caltrans typically relinquish maintenance of any route that passes through a city limit to that city?
In regards to larger cities, they certainly seem to be trying to do so. Whether they're successful depends upon whether a particular city wishes to take over maintenance of the roadway (obviously adding to city expenditures); often, if the city wants to modify or alter the roads' configuration outside state highway parameters (road diets, landscaping, etc.) they'll petition Caltrans for relinquishment. Of course, this assumes the city has not only the revenues to assume maintenance but also to undertake the modifications. In the case of both 185 and 238, Hayward apparently is willing and able to satisfy both criteria (they assumed partial ownership of the connecting CA 92 several years ago) in order to alter traffic patterns in their downtown district (creating a one-way couplet out of what was 185 (now SB) and 238 (NB) north of the former junction. Hayward has been accumulating revenues in the last several years from development of major industrial parks west of I-880 and north and south of CA 92; they seem to have better cash flow than some of their neighbors, including San Lorenzo to the northwest and San Leandro to the north; both have essentially "maxed out" their developable area and are hemmed in by other cities and Oakland Airport to the west. Expending funds to maintain streets now under the parvenu of Caltrans just isn't in the cards for the time being, so the state highways still use city arterials within their limits. With the Hayward and county relinquishments, CA 185 effectively terminates (SB) at/near I-238.
That’s such a weird concept to me. In Utah, the state maintains a lot of roads (almost every exit off I-15 in the Salt Lake urban corridor is to a state highway) and the state maintains every traffic light along a numbered highway. In the few cases I can think of where cities did ask for maintenance, it often resulted in a series of decommissionings and/or realignments of other connecting routes.
In Utah, every road that the state maintains gets a number, and every numbered route is maintained by the state. Obviously CA doesn’t follow this.
Quote from: roadguy2 on December 30, 2017, 01:38:00 AM
That's such a weird concept to me. In Utah, the state maintains a lot of roads (almost every exit off I-15 in the Salt Lake urban corridor is to a state highway) and the state maintains every traffic light along a numbered highway. In the few cases I can think of where cities did ask for maintenance, it often resulted in a series of decommissionings and/or realignments of other connecting routes.
In Utah, every road that the state maintains gets a number, and every numbered route is maintained by the state. Obviously CA doesn't follow this.
California doesn't prefer to maintain local roads, which is why when a conventional highway is dropped from the state highway system, a new route is virtually never adopted. Not to mention that, by law, the local municipality has to keep the road forever and the state cannot take it back. This leads to a lot of broken routes, outdated signage, and confusing signage since California signs its highways for maintenance and databases as opposed to navigation.
Quote from: emory on December 30, 2017, 03:13:53 AM
Quote from: roadguy2 on December 30, 2017, 01:38:00 AM
That's such a weird concept to me. In Utah, the state maintains a lot of roads (almost every exit off I-15 in the Salt Lake urban corridor is to a state highway) and the state maintains every traffic light along a numbered highway. In the few cases I can think of where cities did ask for maintenance, it often resulted in a series of decommissionings and/or realignments of other connecting routes.
In Utah, every road that the state maintains gets a number, and every numbered route is maintained by the state. Obviously CA doesn't follow this.
California doesn't prefer to maintain local roads, which is why when a conventional highway is dropped from the state highway system, a new route is virtually never adopted. Not to mention that, by law, the local municipality has to keep the road forever and the state cannot take it back. This leads to a lot of broken routes, outdated signage, and confusing signage since California signs its highways for maintenance and databases as opposed to navigation.
Usually there is something written in the legislative language about the local level maintaining signage in fapped relinquished sections. Rarely does this happen once the original shields disappear from a relinquished section of highway. Some places like the example I gave with 130 in San Jose the local agency likely outright removed the shields.
If you look at a Caltrans multi-year STIP, you'll find that about a third of the funds apportioned for roadway work are subsidized local projects not on state-maintained highways; this percentage has been increasing since the late '90's as local jurisdictions are finding it increasingly difficult to fund major projects -- so Caltrans, as an omnibus transportation agency (rather than the highway department it was before 1973) is increasingly called upon to effectively subsidize local projects in addition to maintaining the roads under their specific control. So it's often, in economic terms, a moot point regarding local vs. state control of a road -- more often than not much if not most of the funding comes out of the Caltrans till!
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 30, 2017, 09:15:27 AM
Quote from: emory on December 30, 2017, 03:13:53 AM
Quote from: roadguy2 on December 30, 2017, 01:38:00 AM
That's such a weird concept to me. In Utah, the state maintains a lot of roads (almost every exit off I-15 in the Salt Lake urban corridor is to a state highway) and the state maintains every traffic light along a numbered highway. In the few cases I can think of where cities did ask for maintenance, it often resulted in a series of decommissionings and/or realignments of other connecting routes.
In Utah, every road that the state maintains gets a number, and every numbered route is maintained by the state. Obviously CA doesn't follow this.
California doesn't prefer to maintain local roads, which is why when a conventional highway is dropped from the state highway system, a new route is virtually never adopted. Not to mention that, by law, the local municipality has to keep the road forever and the state cannot take it back. This leads to a lot of broken routes, outdated signage, and confusing signage since California signs its highways for maintenance and databases as opposed to navigation.
Usually there is something written in the legislative language about the local level maintaining signage in fapped relinquished sections. Rarely does this happen once the original shields disappear from a relinquished section of highway. Some places like the example I gave with 130 in San Jose the local agency likely outright removed the shields.
That's what happens more often than not. The city just takes down the shields and does nothing, or better, an "END" plate is added when a route breaks. The CA 1 relinquishment in Santa Monica is one of the more paid attention to route breaks around here, to the point where even I-10's overheads have been modified to say "TO" on them. A segment of CA 39 has been given permission to be taken over by the City of Anaheim and I'm curious to see if and what they'll do with the shields.
There are too many unsigned/sparsely-signed routes in NorCal: SR51, SR77 (http://bit.ly/2Dj6X7J (http://bit.ly/2Dj6X7J)), SR112, SR123 (http://bit.ly/2EYRASs (http://bit.ly/2EYRASs)), SR185, SR222, SR262 (http://bit.ly/2mXE6zL (http://bit.ly/2mXE6zL)), SR 283... I'm probably forgetting some. If you're gonna sign SR14U, sign them all.
The money for the 14U signs should go to signs for routes that make sense.
Agreed. It seems that Caltrans does not want any signage for former routes that is no longer under their maintenance. But those should still be signed in some way, maybe as R routes, for relinquished.
We do need those routes for navigational purposes.
Quote from: mrsman on January 21, 2018, 12:33:28 PM
Agreed. It seems that Caltrans does not want any signage for former routes that is no longer under their maintenance. But those should still be signed in some way, maybe as R routes, for relinquished.
We do need those routes for navigational purposes.
I'd say it's not Caltrans, but the jurisdictions that take over maintenance. The laws regarding relinquishment typically state that the city/county/whatever will maintain signs directing to the continuation of the routes, but that doesn't always happen.
Quote from: mrsman on January 21, 2018, 12:33:28 PM
Agreed. It seems that Caltrans does not want any signage for former routes that is no longer under their maintenance. But those should still be signed in some way, maybe as R routes, for relinquished.
We do need those routes for navigational purposes.
The local governments that take over relinquished route segments are usually required to maintain some signage to guide travelers to the continuation of the route, or some other part of the state highway system. But that requirement is often treated as a joke, and I'm not sure how it gets enforced.
The governments that don't treat that requirement as a joke often just keep up the old route markers for as long as they last. If you require them to replace the markers with "R" markers, the old markers may just disappear, never to be replaced. And does Caltrans even have authority to erect "R" markers on roads it no longer maintains?
Quote from: mrpablue on January 20, 2018, 07:33:22 PM
There are too many unsigned/sparsely-signed routes in NorCal: SR51, SR77 (http://bit.ly/2Dj6X7J (http://bit.ly/2Dj6X7J)), SR112, SR123 (http://bit.ly/2EYRASs (http://bit.ly/2EYRASs)), SR185, SR222, SR262 (http://bit.ly/2mXE6zL (http://bit.ly/2mXE6zL)), SR 283... I'm probably forgetting some. If you're gonna sign SR14U, sign them all.
The money for the 14U signs should go to signs for routes that make sense.
14U might just be a District 7 thing, or maybe shoving in Santa Clarita's face that the state really, really wants the city to take over that superseded part of old 14 (Los Angeles and Kern Counties took over the rest of the old route, which is now signed only as part of Historic US 6). Other Caltrans districts just remove the signage for the routes they want to remove from the state highway system (see below for examples), but for some reason not D7. At least one other U route doesn't have U signage, though the one I have in mind (8U across the river from Yuma AZ) is signed as part of an Interstate business loop.
As for some of the other routes mentioned:
51 is signed as part of Business I-80. The 51 designation keeps under state maintenance the part of old I-80 through Sacramento that isn't part of another route such as US 50.
222 used to serve a state hospital. The hospital has since been closed, and there is now a Buddhist religious facility on its grounds. Caltrans probably would like to give away that highway to the city of Ukiah, but maybe the city and/or the state legislature won't agree. In any case, it no longer belongs in the state highway system IMO, and the lack of signage (except on milemarkers and bridge identification markers) reflects its unimportance to the general public.
283 is a bridge, on a route otherwise relinquished to a local government that apparently doesn't want to pay for bridge maintenance. It is part of a (barely signed) US 101 business route. 275 is similar, the beautiful but expensive-to-maintain Tower Bridge over the Sacramento River, that Caltrans is having a harder time fobbing off on a local government than the rest of former 275 (which has no 275 signage, the state didn't require it).
Quote from: oscar on January 21, 2018, 01:48:54 PM
As for some of the other routes mentioned:
222 used to serve a state hospital. The hospital has since been closed, and there is now a Buddhist religious facility on its grounds. Caltrans probably would like to give away that highway to the city of Ukiah, but maybe the city and/or the state legislature won't agree. In any case, it no longer belongs in the state highway system IMO, and the lack of signage (except on milemarkers and bridge identification markers) reflects its unimportance to the general public.
CA 222 is still on the state books for the same reason that the highly truncated 275 and 283 are: maintenance of a bridge; in this instance, one over the Russian River. It's in a relatively flood-prone area, and Mendocino County, in which the facility resides, would rather not assume maintenance of the bridge, which provides access from Ukiah to not only the Buddhist retreat that's on the former state hospital grounds but also residences and farms (particularly vineyards; this is within the northern reaches of "wine country") on the east bank of the river. So it remains an unsigned state highway; even during the late '60's push to sign anything under state maintenance, this particular short highway seems to have escaped unshielded!
Quote from: sparker on January 22, 2018, 12:58:32 AM
Quote from: oscar on January 21, 2018, 01:48:54 PM
As for some of the other routes mentioned:
222 used to serve a state hospital. The hospital has since been closed, and there is now a Buddhist religious facility on its grounds. Caltrans probably would like to give away that highway to the city of Ukiah, but maybe the city and/or the state legislature won't agree. In any case, it no longer belongs in the state highway system IMO, and the lack of signage (except on milemarkers and bridge identification markers) reflects its unimportance to the general public.
CA 222 is still on the state books for the same reason that the highly truncated 275 and 283 are: maintenance of a bridge; in this instance, one over the Russian River. It's in a relatively flood-prone area, and Mendocino County, in which the facility resides, would rather not assume maintenance of the bridge, which provides access from Ukiah to not only the Buddhist retreat that's on the former state hospital grounds but also residences and farms (particularly vineyards; this is within the northern reaches of "wine country") on the east bank of the river. So it remains an unsigned state highway; even during the late '60's push to sign anything under state maintenance, this particular short highway seems to have escaped unshielded!
Google maps seems to sign all of these.
Quote from: roadfro on January 21, 2018, 01:13:21 PM
Quote from: mrsman on January 21, 2018, 12:33:28 PM
Agreed. It seems that Caltrans does not want any signage for former routes that is no longer under their maintenance. But those should still be signed in some way, maybe as R routes, for relinquished.
We do need those routes for navigational purposes.
I'd say it's not Caltrans, but the jurisdictions that take over maintenance. The laws regarding relinquishment typically state that the city/county/whatever will maintain signs directing to the continuation of the routes, but that doesn't always happen.
Then there needs to be some better enforcement power on the part of the state. The feds forced states to accept a 21 y.o. drinking age by telling states that they would not receive highway funding unless they raised the age to this level. The state could do similar by withholding certain payments to the localities if they do not adeqately sign the roads.
Quote from: sparker on December 30, 2017, 02:30:50 PM
If you look at a Caltrans multi-year STIP, you'll find that about a third of the funds apportioned for roadway work are subsidized local projects not on state-maintained highways; this percentage has been increasing since the late '90's as local jurisdictions are finding it increasingly difficult to fund major projects -- so Caltrans, as an omnibus transportation agency (rather than the highway department it was before 1973) is increasingly called upon to effectively subsidize local projects in addition to maintaining the roads under their specific control. So it's often, in economic terms, a moot point regarding local vs. state control of a road -- more often than not much if not most of the funding comes out of the Caltrans till!
No, what happened was that in 1998, legislation was passed that gave local agencies control of 75 percent of the revenues from the state's gasoline excise tax.
Quote from: mrsman on January 24, 2018, 07:51:47 PM
Then there needs to be some better enforcement power on the part of the state. The feds forced states to accept a 21 y.o. drinking age by telling states that they would not receive highway funding unless they raised the age to this level. The state could do similar by withholding certain payments to the localities if they do not adeqately sign the roads.
One of the relinquished sections of state highways where former route signage has disappeared is in the state capital, Sacramento, where Caltrans is headquartered. The non-compliance with the state law requiring continuation signage can't possibly have escaped the notice of Caltrans, or state legislators. I don't know whether their hands are tied somehow, or more likely that they just don't care.
Funny thing is that part but not all of the relinquished CA 160 segment in Sacramento has excellent Historic US 40 signage. But no CA 160 signage, except perhaps at the north end of the segment just before state maintenance (and full CA 160 route signage) resumes at the American River bridge.
I wonder what Caltrans would think if they knew there was this much online discussion about such a weird little route.
Quote from: kphoger on January 25, 2018, 01:28:17 PM
I wonder what Caltrans would think if they knew there was this much online discussion about such a weird little route.
If they didn't before, they do now. See the second post before yours.
Quote from: oscar on January 25, 2018, 01:40:21 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 25, 2018, 01:28:17 PM
I wonder what Caltrans would think if they knew there was this much online discussion about such a weird little route.
If they didn't before, they do now. See the second post before yours.
I'm sure it wouldn't surprise anyone oddities are discussed. Really it's only people like us that would generally talk highways or reach out to DOTs.
Quote from: jrouse on January 24, 2018, 10:36:29 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 30, 2017, 02:30:50 PM
If you look at a Caltrans multi-year STIP, you'll find that about a third of the funds apportioned for roadway work are subsidized local projects not on state-maintained highways; this percentage has been increasing since the late '90's as local jurisdictions are finding it increasingly difficult to fund major projects -- so Caltrans, as an omnibus transportation agency (rather than the highway department it was before 1973) is increasingly called upon to effectively subsidize local projects in addition to maintaining the roads under their specific control. So it's often, in economic terms, a moot point regarding local vs. state control of a road -- more often than not much if not most of the funding comes out of the Caltrans till!
No, what happened was that in 1998, legislation was passed that gave local agencies control of 75 percent of the revenues from the state's gasoline excise tax.
Shit -- leave the state for a few years for grad school and this gets into the books. Must have slipped under my own radar -- but not terribly surprised it's in place, given the direction Caltrans has taken over the last couple of decades -- both in terms of funding availability and prioritization -- including the decline in maintenance, signage standards. But it, even in a whimsical sense, makes one wonder about the agency's eagerness to relinquish urban facilities when they're probably going to end up paying for their upkeep in any case!
Quote from: oscar on January 24, 2018, 11:09:26 PM
Quote from: mrsman on January 24, 2018, 07:51:47 PM
Then there needs to be some better enforcement power on the part of the state. The feds forced states to accept a 21 y.o. drinking age by telling states that they would not receive highway funding unless they raised the age to this level. The state could do similar by withholding certain payments to the localities if they do not adeqately sign the roads.
One of the relinquished sections of state highways where former route signage has disappeared is in the state capital, Sacramento, where Caltrans is headquartered. The non-compliance with the state law requiring continuation signage can't possibly have escaped the notice of Caltrans, or state legislators. I don't know whether their hands are tied somehow, or more likely that they just don't care.
Funny thing is that part but not all of the relinquished CA 160 segment in Sacramento has excellent Historic US 40 signage. But no CA 160 signage, except perhaps at the north end of the segment just before state maintenance (and full CA 160 route signage) resumes at the American River bridge.
I think they just don't care and figure that everyone will just use GPS for navigation purposes. Sad.
In reallity, navigation should be done better. In the old days, the government was inept and it was actually the local AAA clubs (CSAA and ACSC) that put in some really good signage all over the state. Perhaps those days are coming back.
I'll just note that, while in the process of adding postmiles to my pages for the next update, I ran into a Route 101U (US 101). There are actually a couple of portions of it; I don't know if it is signed in the field. Here are the two original references from my site when I uncovered it:
In April 2010, the CTC approved relinquishment of right of way in the county of Mendocino along Route 101U (Geyser Road) from the Sonoma County line to Route 101, consisting of superseded highway right of way.
In June 2013, the CTC authorized relinquishment of right of way in the county of Mendocino on Route 101U in the Confusion Hill area, consisting of superseded highway right of way.
Quote from: cahwyguy on June 10, 2018, 09:15:26 AM
I'll just note that, while in the process of adding postmiles to my pages for the next update, I ran into a Route 101U (US 101). There are actually a couple of portions of it; I don't know if it is signed in the field. Here are the two original references from my site when I uncovered it:
In April 2010, the CTC approved relinquishment of right of way in the county of Mendocino along Route 101U (Geyser Road) from the Sonoma County line to Route 101, consisting of superseded highway right of way.
In June 2013, the CTC authorized relinquishment of right of way in the county of Mendocino on Route 101U in the Confusion Hill area, consisting of superseded highway right of way.
It appears the route lacks any Caltrans signage or even Post Mile paddles but is signed as Mendocino County Route 101A:
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8522242,-123.0287648,3a,15y,353.41h,87.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPfXM2WjgzfWpPWtoC3xi2w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
CA 14U hasn't been discussed in several years. Given I was in Los Angeles this weekend I was curious to find out if CA 14U was still in the Postmile Tool, it wasn't. That being the case I did go on a drive along Sierra Highway to see if any CA 14U shields were present, there is still two:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52785895607_8fc0d37dfb_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oqvvJp)14CAUa (https://flic.kr/p/2oqvvJp) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52786901553_3d776d94f2_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oqAELi)14CAUb (https://flic.kr/p/2oqAELi) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 01, 2023, 08:28:28 PM
CA 14U hasn't been discussed in several years. Given I was in Los Angeles this weekend I was curious to find out if CA 14U was still in the Postmile Tool, it wasn't.
Still is. Go into the tool's map, click on the Sierra Hwy. At least two places, a 14U popup appears.
I'm in a prolonged power outage in northern Virginia right now, will sign off until power is restored.
Weird, I was clicking on Sierra Highway between Dockweiler and Golden Valley Road. It worked now, I wonder what was going on a couple days ago?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 01, 2023, 08:59:05 PM
Weird, I was clicking on Sierra Highway between Dockweiler and Golden Valley Road. It worked now, I wonder what was going on a couple days ago?
In addition to the postmile tool, it's useful to go to the Postmile 10th map https://gisdata-caltrans.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/c22341fec9c74c6b9488ee4da23dd967/explore?location=37.087302%2C-119.281571%2C7.00 and State Highway Network (SHN) Lines map https://gisdata-caltrans.opendata.arcgis.com/maps/77f2d7ba94e040a78bfbe36feb6279da . An index to all the GIS databases is at https://gisdata-caltrans.opendata.arcgis.com/
Unrelated, but is there a way to also get GIS of county routes? I'm doing a renumbering project and I want to integrate in county highways where possible.
Quote from: Quillz on April 01, 2023, 10:25:43 PM
Unrelated, but is there a way to also get GIS of county routes? I'm doing a renumbering project and I want to integrate in county highways where possible.
I'd imagine so, but you would probably need to check each county's public works department. LA City has, for example, https://geohub.lacity.org/ . San Diego has https://www.sangis.org/ . Just try searching with the county name, "Public Works" and "GIS" or "Database".
Quote from: cahwyguy on April 01, 2023, 10:31:54 PM
Quote from: Quillz on April 01, 2023, 10:25:43 PM
Unrelated, but is there a way to also get GIS of county routes? I'm doing a renumbering project and I want to integrate in county highways where possible.
I'd imagine so, but you would probably need to check each county's public works department. LA City has, for example, https://geohub.lacity.org/ . San Diego has https://www.sangis.org/ . Just try searching with the county name, "Public Works" and "GIS" or "Database".
Ah, I see. Thanks. Haven't messed with GIS data in a while. I was just kind of tracing stuff by hand in Illustrator.
Put a blog together for CA 14U:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2023/08/california-state-route-14u-former-us.html?m=1
Sierra Hwy is a more beautiful drive into Santa Clarita and less stressful. CA-14 is usually slogged with traffic and climbs and descends a hill (at freeway speed too) near I-5. I'd rather cruise on in through 14U. It makes sense that it's state maintained because its character as a highway is much closer to that of a 2-4 lane state highway rather than a city arterial.
I'd kill (probably Max, because he'd be my competition :sombrero: ) for one of those shields in my collection.
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on August 15, 2023, 01:20:33 PM
I'd kill (probably Max, because he'd be my competition :sombrero: ) for one of those shields in my collection.
Unfortunately none of those began available during SB1. The scarp shop I was getting old signs from mostly had District 6 shields.
If you look at the GIS links I posted earlier, you'll see there are multiple segments of 14U, of which only one is signed.
(P.S.: You've never commented on the errors on the Route 245 post: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33418.0)
Quote from: cahwyguy on August 15, 2023, 11:01:39 PM
If you look at the GIS links I posted earlier, you'll see there are multiple segments of 14U, of which only one is signed.
(P.S.: You've never commented on the errors on the Route 245 post: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33418.0)
Noted, I just plain forgot about it. I'll probably have time the next two nights to sort out what was going on with LRN 166 the next two nights in Monterey.