OK, so I sent an email with a proposal to extend US-60 (back) into California by rerouting it along AZ-72, CA-62, I-10, and CA-60 (highlighted in green):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2740%2F4369652744_ddb2027fe1_b.jpg&hash=66347bca16fc02fcc7a9b55a1042fcb1c25c4b8c)
I got an email from someone at Caltrans that said:
"According to AASHTO's Special Committee on Route Numbering, the U.S. Route Numbering System hasbeen decommissioned and no new routes are to be added and no existing U.S.road shall be extended."
When I wrote back saying that this wasn't the case and the case was more about whether the AZ-72/CA-62 route would be an adequate US Route than whether the US Route System is not to be expanded (essentially), he basically wrote back, pointing back at the AASHTO "rule":
"I would also like to point out AASHTO Policy # 4 from the web link belowthat states........No additional roads shall be added.........no existing U.S. road shall be extended........"
The problem here is that he's not seeing the "except" part in Policy #4 on Page 5 in the link:
http://downloads.transportation.org/USRN_Policies.pdf (http://downloads.transportation.org/USRN_Policies.pdf)
He called me (I did give him my number to talk about this in person), but I'll be calling him next week about this. What would you say I say? What are your thoughts about US-60 being rerouted along AZ-72, CA-62, I-10, and CA-60? I just wish that he'd listen and not try to run this under-no-circumstances-can-an-existing-US-Route-be-extended rhetoric on me. X-(
There's not a California prohibition against US route creations or extensions he's mixing up with the AASHTO rules is there?
The route over AZ 72/CA 62 looks good to me, though I wouldn't have that dip down to Hope, AZ if an alternative existed. From just a view glances via GSV, I'm not sure though that AZ 72 will meet AASHTO standards.
Maybe try to sell it as providing another easy to follow route in case I-10 requires closure.
Sounds a lot like you're getting the run-around, but keep at it -- it is a good idea.
It's kind of interesting that California's very active in signing historic US Routes when the state's so averse to actual US Routes!
I think his point that you mentioned earlier that such a bill has to get through legislature is really the hard part- Even if Caltrans WANTS to do it, they have to have legislative approval- they just carry out orders from the legislature. Caltrans can't just go put up US 60 signs (even with AASHTO approval), it has to be passed as a matter of law. I think you have to call your local California congressman (and you're in Utah, so that complicates things) if you want to get anywhere with it.
If I were you, I'd call whatever congressman represents the most sparsely populated district your proposed alignment runs through, and propose it to him as something that would be a boon for businesses in the area and spur growth
That said, I love the idea
The specific AASHTO policy being quoted by the AASHTO official would appear to be the following:
Quote from: AASHTO Policy
4. No additional road shall be added to the U.S. numbered road system, and no existing U.S. road shall be extended except where there is a definite showing of an adequately improved highway carrying an established and necessary line of interstate traffic not otherwise provided for by existing U.S. routes and for which traffic adequate service cannot be provided by State route numbers.
Extension of present U.S. numbered routes may be made only when the proposed extension is in the general direction of the present route.
Proposed extensions shall not be made when, to do so, it is necessary to duplicate U.S. routes already established, unless the duplication is for a short distance and the routes then diverge, ending in different terminal points.
I'm not completely familiar with the state highways that the proposed extension of US 60 entails. But from what I can make out on the map above, it appears that this extension would seem to have a tough sell. Surely, the DOT and/or AASHTO will likely lump consider Interstate highways in the definition of "U.S. routes". Thus, this proposed extension is facing a tough sell on the following points:
* The extension corridor doesn't seem to serve any really major population centers that aren't adequately served by existing state routes.
* Interstate traffic is better served by following existing I-10 than the proposed routing.
To sell the idea, you've got to be able to prove (or at least reasonably infer) that there is a need for the continuous highway along the proposed routing. What would be the tangible benefits of this extension? Why should the state spend money to resign this highway as a new route? Right now, from my casual observation, this proposal just provides a new route that's somewhat circuitous for through traffic in rural areas and revives an old highway number in Riverside and LA...that won't sway the decision makers.
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 18, 2010, 11:46:58 PM
From just a view glances via GSV, I'm not sure though that AZ 72 will meet AASHTO standards.
So, what exactly, are the AASHTO standards?
Quote from: roadfro on February 19, 2010, 05:26:28 AM
The specific AASHTO policy being quoted by the AASHTO official would appear to be the following:
Quote from: AASHTO Policy
4. No additional road shall be added to the U.S. numbered road system, and no existing U.S. road shall be extended except where there is a definite showing of an adequately improved highway carrying an established and necessary line of interstate traffic not otherwise provided for by existing U.S. routes and for which traffic adequate service cannot be provided by State route numbers.
Extension of present U.S. numbered routes may be made only when the proposed extension is in the general direction of the present route.
Proposed extensions shall not be made when, to do so, it is necessary to duplicate U.S. routes already established, unless the duplication is for a short distance and the routes then diverge, ending in different terminal points.
I'm not completely familiar with the state highways that the proposed extension of US 60 entails. But from what I can make out on the map above, it appears that this extension would seem to have a tough sell. Surely, the DOT and/or AASHTO will likely lump consider Interstate highways in the definition of "U.S. routes". Thus, this proposed extension is facing a tough sell on the following points:
* The extension corridor doesn't seem to serve any really major population centers that aren't adequately served by existing state routes.
* Interstate traffic is better served by following existing I-10 than the proposed routing.
To sell the idea, you've got to be able to prove (or at least reasonably infer) that there is a need for the continuous highway along the proposed routing. What would be the tangible benefits of this extension? Why should the state spend money to resign this highway as a new route? Right now, from my casual observation, this proposal just provides a new route that's somewhat circuitous for through traffic in rural areas and revives an old highway number in Riverside and LA...that won't sway the decision makers.
Good points, though the reason I would have this proposal would be to use a continuous route for the areas that I-10 doesn't serve: Parker, 29 Palms, etc. People coming east from Los Angeles would use the route to get to the Colorado River resorts, as it would do the same for those coming from Phoenix westward. Also found in the AASHTO policies, if you look at the bottom paragraph of page 3, it says "that the US-Interstate systems compliment each other." I had this in mind when I thought up this extension.
From what I'm getting from these quotes, I think that I need to prove why this route should be US-60 and not AZ-72/CA-62/I-10/CA-60 and why it's necessary (serving areas not served by I-10, complimenting east-west travel between Phoenix and LA). Is this correct (in a nutshell)?
Quote from: Rover_0 on February 19, 2010, 02:43:52 PM
Good points, though the reason I would have this proposal would be to use a continuous route for the areas that I-10 doesn't serve: Parker, 29 Palms, etc. People coming east from Los Angeles would use the route to get to the Colorado River resorts, as it would do the same for those coming from Phoenix westward. Also found in the AASHTO policies, if you look at the bottom paragraph of page 3, it says "that the US-Interstate systems compliment each other." I had this in mind when I thought up this extension.
From what I'm getting from these quotes, I think that I need to prove why this route should be US-60 and not AZ-72/CA-62/I-10/CA-60 and why it's necessary (serving areas not served by I-10, complimenting east-west travel between Phoenix and LA). Is this correct (in a nutshell)?
In a nutshell, yes.
Some additional questions to consider:
* Why is a continuous route between Parker, 29 Palms, etc. necessary? Is there currently a significant amount of traffic between these communities that would warrant the extension of a single route?
* Where are the Colorado River Resorts that you're referring to, and how do people from LA or Phoenix get there now? Depending on where one is going, I would still think that I-10 (at least part of the way) might be a more direct route.
I think many of the preceding points are very valid. I would agree that there is no need for this route to be US 60. I'm not necessarily sure the resistance would come from AASHTO. If CalTrans and ADOT submitted this proposal, I'm pretty sure it would go through. You probably need to convince the authorities at the state level.
However, when I read these AASHTO policies and consider many of the recent extensions/creations of US Routes, I scratch my head.
Example: "Proposed extensions shall not be made when, to do so, it is necessary to duplicate U.S. routes already established, unless the duplication is for a short distance and the routes then diverge, ending in different terminal points." Really? US 412's and US 400's western extensions and US 63's southern extensions were all approved with duplexes to their termini.
Point being, a lot of this language seems to be philosophical guidance but isn't necessarily followed in the actual decision-making.
No!!!! keep California 60.I'm sorry but I just can't see CA-60 with a US 60 shield.Although, California could use some more US Routes.
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on February 19, 2010, 10:22:32 PM
No!!!! keep California 60.I'm sorry but I just can't see CA-60 with a US 60 shield.
I can. :D
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Beaumont,+CA&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=35.219929,54.84375&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Beaumont,+Riverside,+California&ll=33.932518,-116.987582&spn=0.004504,0.006695&z=17&layer=c&cbll=33.932449,-116.98746&panoid=A-NVtFqmhknPbayciN7Rpg&cbp=12,331.25,,0,7.88
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on February 19, 2010, 10:22:32 PM
No!!!! keep California 60.I'm sorry but I just can't see CA-60 with a US 60 shield.Although, California could use some more US Routes.
There aren't too many other logical US Routes to bring into California besides this one.
I'm a little more nostalgic for the US Routes; even though I understand they've been largely replaced by interstates, I still think it's a shame they aren't still around. So as impractical as it may be, I'd be happy to see US 60 bump CA 60.
Another thought: there aren't very many transcontinental routes of any kind these days. At the height of the US Routes, we had US 10, 30, 20, 40, 50, 6, 60, 70 and 80 -- nine routes. Now there are only really five to seven, depending on your definition of trans-continental: interstates 10, 80, and 90, and US 30, 20, 50, and sort of 6. Bringing US 60 back into California would restore another sea-to-sea route.
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on February 19, 2010, 10:22:32 PM
No!!!! keep California 60.I'm sorry but I just can't see CA-60 with a US 60 shield.Although, California could use some more US Routes.
You are aware that California 60 already has US 60 shields, right? They're just patched over with CA-60 shields...
Your proposal for a new US 60 is good with me. I think California's view is similiar to Michigan's on the US routes: If an interstate is on the US highway corridor it takes the route over like I-94 replacing the original US 12, I-96 replacing US 16, I-75 replacing US 25 and US 10 and I-69 taking over US 27. In the southern states like Florida,Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama the US routes run next to the Interstates. To me it's interesting how regions in different parts of the country handle its roads in contrast to other areas.
Quote from: xonhulu on February 19, 2010, 11:45:15 PM
I'm a little more nostalgic for the US Routes; even though I understand they've been largely replaced by interstates, I still think it's a shame they aren't still around. So as impractical as it may be, I'd be happy to see US 60 bump CA 60.
Not to mention that the most direct routing isn't necessarily required for a route extension (as witnessed with Arkansas's continuing additions of former state highways into the US route system over the last few decades - some of which provided a parallel, but longer corridor alongside existing US routes!).
Consider this point: If the HIST US 66 shield is proving to be a boon to California, by promoting history, business, tourism, etc, bringing US 60 back might help in similar ways, particularly if it supplants AZ 72 and CA 62. TwentyNine Palms and Parker may benefit from having a US shield, much like an Interstate shield supposedly benefits a city.
Quote from: Bickendan on February 20, 2010, 01:10:58 AM
Consider this point: If the HIST US 66 shield is proving to be a boon to California, by promoting history, business, tourism, etc, bringing US 60 back might help in similar ways, particularly if it supplants AZ 72 and CA 62. TwentyNine Palms and Parker may benefit from having a US shield, much like an Interstate shield supposedly benefits a city.
Honestly, this could be used as an argument for reconsituting several other US routes, 66 included, considering how many independent segments exist outside of freeway milage.
One of the issues with signage in California is that it is almost always tied to whether CalTrans maintains the road or not via legislative definition, regardless of the practical value of having one continuous number on a road (thus explaining why in one example...Route 39 has, save for a few years, had a gap between Fullerton and Azusa, or why specific wording in route maintenance relinquishment is required to guarantee continued signage in certain municipalities). I don't think that system will ever be done away with, but if this was a simple matter of CalTrans deciding to number something (regardless of who maintains it) without the need of legislative redefinition, this probably would be a much easier process.
With regards to Route 66 out here: After traversing the segment from Hesperia to Santa Monica this weekend, the signage for Historic 66 hasn't quite matched the "trailblazer-constant" level of the past, but several communities in the San Gabriel Valley have put up signs (including some nice cutouts west of Monrovia) marking the route. Certainly it's much better signed as Historic Route 66 in some form, than as "State Route 66" (which is CalTrans's officially maintaned segment between San Dimas and San Bernardino, of which the State Route 66 signs are only found near I-215 and Route 210). Los Angeles has even been putting up some Historic US 99 signage along San Fernando Road east of Chinatown too...
Yes, I know CA-60 came from US 60 in the first place.I just would take the sexiness of a California State Route Shield over the US Route shield any day of the week.
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on February 20, 2010, 01:41:14 AM
Yes, I know CA-60 came from US 60 in the first place.I just would take the sexiness of a California State Route Shield over the US Route shield any day of the week.
I've always guessed that part of the rationale for the 1964 renumbering/mass truncation wasn't just to reduce four-way cosigning, but also to maintain the "importance" of standalone US routes, particularly US 395 south of Hesperia (at the time not an Interstate) and US 101 north of Los Angeles - as noted by leifvanderwall, very much the opposite approach of states further east that maintain the old US route as a surface alternate or frontage road.
(This doesn't then explain why 466 and 99 - both still vitally important to this day - weren't retained, but I digress.)
Considering that California's only real additions to the network post-1964 are the unofficial US 50A and the southward extension of US 95, I'm not so sure the argument entirely holds water...but at least this concept of US 60 would not be a revival of a completely supplanted corridor, and in many ways would be similar to how US 95 grew in this state.
Heck, if you are going to bring back US 60, why not bring back US 91 and kill CA 91 while you are at it?Perhaps extend US 60 further into California, but California 60 stays.Period.
Quote from: TheStranger on February 20, 2010, 01:47:39 AM
I've always guessed that part of the rationale for the 1964 renumbering/mass truncation wasn't just to reduce four-way cosigning, but also to maintain the "importance" of standalone US routes, particularly US 395 south of Hesperia (at the time not an Interstate) and US 101 north of Los Angeles - as noted by leifvanderwall, very much the opposite approach of states further east that maintain the old US route as a surface alternate or frontage road.
Good point, as the US Routes remaining in California are mostly pretty important routes, almost treated like mini-Interstates. Which brings up your parenthetical comment:
Quote(This doesn't then explain why 466 and 99 - both still vitally important to this day - weren't retained, but I digress.)
Agreed. Given the prominence of 99, retaining it as a US Route would've made more sense. Not as sure about 466's importance, but it may be a moot point if I-40 is extended over CA 58.
QuoteConsidering that California's only real additions to the network post-1964 are the unofficial US 50A and the southward extension of US 95, I'm not so sure the argument entirely holds water...but at least this concept of US 60 would not be a revival of a completely supplanted corridor, and in many ways would be similar to how US 95 grew in this state.
According to usends.com, US 95 was already to Blythe in 1940, and the extension to Mexico took place in 1961, so there have actually been no additions to California's US Route system since 1964.
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on February 20, 2010, 02:03:59 AM
Heck, if you are going to bring back US 60, why not bring back US 91 and kill CA 91 while you are at it?Perhaps extend US 60 further into California, but California 60 stays.Period.
Impossible: California doesn't allow route duplication, so you couldn't have both US 60 and CA 60 as distinct routes. The only exceptions I can think of are state route extensions of interstates (CA 15, 710, 110) and the odd I-238/CA 238 situation.
And there's no parallel between 60 and 91 -- US 60 would require only a short duplex with I-10 under Landry's plan, while returning US 91 to California would require hundreds of miles of duplexing with I-15 from its current terminus in northern Utah just to take over the relatively brief CA 91 freeway.
Quote from: xonhulu on February 20, 2010, 02:09:26 AM
Which brings up your parenthetical comment:
Quote(This doesn't then explain why 466 and 99 - both still vitally important to this day - weren't retained, but I digress.)
Agreed. Given the prominence of 99, retaining it as a US Route would've made more sense. Not as sure about 466's importance, but it may be a moot point if I-40 is extended over CA 58.
For 99, I think California wanted to get rid of all single-state US routes - but if there is one road that is justified in being a single-state US route, it would be this one (and considering Oregon's usage of State Route 99 as a recurring, state-long parallel surface corridor to I-5, a two-state 99 probably would have remained had California philosophy been different in 1964). US 290 in Texas is another lengthy single-state US route that still is important to this day.
It certainly is much longer than US 46 in New Jersey...:D
There are several reasons I've conjectured why 466 was renumbered in 1964, despite the continuing importance of the Bakersfield-Barstow route:
1. The segment that connected back to US 66 in Arizona existed entirely as multiplexes (US 93 between Kingman and Las Vegas, US 91/I-15 between Barstow and Las Vegas) - though IIRC, US 466 was the original designation for the Kingman-Las Vegas route before US 93 was extended southward to Wickenburg.
2. California has, for some reason, a reluctance to use high state route numbers, with the 300s being the lowest numbered routes that were not future/current/past Interstates, and all of the 300 routes being former routings of state routes (371, 330). It is notable that a significant portion of what was US 466 from Route 41 east to Route 99 in Famoso has a similar number - Route 46.
Quote from: xonhulu on February 20, 2010, 02:09:26 AM
QuoteConsidering that California's only real additions to the network post-1964 are the unofficial US 50A and the southward extension of US 95, I'm not so sure the argument entirely holds water...but at least this concept of US 60 would not be a revival of a completely supplanted corridor, and in many ways would be similar to how US 95 grew in this state.
According to usends.com, US 95 was already to Blythe in 1940, and the extension to Mexico took place in 1961, so there have actually been no additions to California's US Route system since 1964.
I do wish US 50A became "official" so to speak, I've never been that far into the Sierras to see if it is still signed. Before US 50A in 1999 or so, California has avoided the usage of the alternate banner, despite it being much more common pre-1964 (US 66A in Los Angeles, US 101A along the PCH, US 40A from Davis through Marysville and the Feather River area to Reno).
Quote from: TheStranger on February 20, 2010, 03:34:47 AM
For 99, I think California wanted to get rid of all single-state US routes - but if there is one road that is justified in being a single-state US route, it would be this one (and considering Oregon's usage of State Route 99 as a recurring, state-long parallel surface corridor to I-5, a two-state 99 probably would have remained had California philosophy been different in 1964). US 290 in Texas is another lengthy single-state US route that still is important to this day.
I also have the impression the legislature was trying to get rid of multiplexes and keeping US 99 would've involved a lengthy duplex with I-5 in northern California. Also, I think Washington state also wanted to eliminate US 99. It seemed Oregon wasn't as eager but went along; they also got rid of single-state US 126 at about the same time, also a mistake, IMO.
QuoteI do wish US 50A became "official" so to speak, I've never been that far into the Sierras to see if it is still signed. Before US 50A in 1999 or so, California has avoided the usage of the alternate banner, despite it being much more common pre-1964 (US 66A in Los Angeles, US 101A along the PCH, US 40A from Davis through Marysville and the Feather River area to Reno).
I just looked up the routing of ALT 50. I wasn't sure exactly where it ran until now. Looks like a big chunk of it isn't state-maintained, which is probably why it's unofficial.
Quote from: xonhulu on February 20, 2010, 11:36:01 AM
I also have the impression the legislature was trying to get rid of multiplexes and keeping US 99 would've involved a lengthy duplex with I-5 in northern California. Also, I think Washington state also wanted to eliminate US 99. It seemed Oregon wasn't as eager but went along; they also got rid of single-state US 126 at about the same time, also a mistake, IMO.
I don't think it's quite the "long multiplex" that you would see with say, the past US 395/US 6 co-routing from Ridgecrest to Bishop...but more, a series of recurring coroutings like you'd see for a US route/Interstate pair elsewhere.
But if California is more than happy to do the Route 1/US 101 pair on multiple occasions (including the long co-signing from Gaviota to the beaches west of Ventura), then it makes it harder to suggest that US 99 should have been completely cut off. I could imagine it working out like this (with the Los Angeles-Calexico segment being truncated, partially due to being supplanted by I-10 and I-5, and partially due to being a completely different corridor past LA) -
1. Wheeler Ridge to Sacramento
2. Sacramento to Red Bluff
3. Route 273 in Redding
4. Old Hwy 99 from Weed to Grenada
5. Route 263 in Yreka
Since Oregon begins their State Route 99 not too long after crossing northward...I don't see how this is any less workable than the recurring Route 1 segments off of 101.
Quote from: xonhulu on February 20, 2010, 11:36:01 AM
QuoteI do wish US 50A became "official" so to speak, I've never been that far into the Sierras to see if it is still signed. Before US 50A in 1999 or so, California has avoided the usage of the alternate banner, despite it being much more common pre-1964 (US 66A in Los Angeles, US 101A along the PCH, US 40A from Davis through Marysville and the Feather River area to Reno).
I just looked up the routing of ALT 50. I wasn't sure exactly where it ran until now. Looks like a big chunk of it isn't state-maintained, which is probably why it's unofficial.
That's probably it. It's a very different signing philosophy from Massachussetts (which I recall posts whether a signed route is state-maintained or not, but continues the route signage unbroken)...which I suspect has to do with the legislative nature of all highways in this state.
Quote from: TheStranger on February 20, 2010, 01:40:23 AM
One of the issues with signage in California is that it is almost always tied to whether CalTrans maintains the road or not via legislative definition, regardless of the practical value of having one continuous number on a road (thus explaining why in one example...Route 39 has, save for a few years, had a gap between Fullerton and Azusa, or why specific wording in route maintenance relinquishment is required to guarantee continued signage in certain municipalities). I don't think that system will ever be done away with, but if this was a simple matter of CalTrans deciding to number something (regardless of who maintains it) without the need of legislative redefinition, this probably would be a much easier process.
I don't understand why states unnecessarily burden their highway department with this sort of thing. States should empower their highway department (like Ohio does, making it illegal to perform speed limit changes without consulting ODOT) instead of neutering it by requiring all route number and maintenance changes to be performed through the state legislature. In Oklahoma, ODOT need not ask the legislature; the highway commission handles all of that. The only way the legislature is involved is in setting a mileage cap (which is similarly stupid but it keeps us from turning into Kentucky).
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on February 20, 2010, 01:41:14 AM
Yes, I know CA-60 came from US 60 in the first place.I just would take the sexiness of a California State Route Shield over the US Route shield any day of the week.
That is a very specific and disturbing fetish!
Another issue that would need to be addressed is what to do with the ~20 miles of existing US 60 between Hope and I-10.
ADOT might duplicate the confusing US 95/AZ 95 situation in Quartzsite and name it AZ 60....
^There, problem solved.
Next, restoring US 99 in California. ODOT will probably jump on it (they did, after all, mistakenly put up US 99E shields on I-5 during the freeway reconstruction south of Salem about 10 years ago...).
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 20, 2010, 08:23:48 PM
I don't understand why states unnecessarily burden their highway department with this sort of thing. States should empower their highway department (like Ohio does, making it illegal to perform speed limit changes without consulting ODOT) instead of neutering it by requiring all route number and maintenance changes to be performed through the state legislature.
It's more a historical artifact - before the 1930s (when signed routes were first created in California!) and dating as far back as the 1910s, the legislative route numbers were used to determine what was maintained by CalTrans, i.e. LRN 2 referred to much of US 101 in the state.
Why this wasn't done away with during the 1964 renumbering though, I don't know - that would have been a prime opportunity to allow state maintenance to be tangentially related to signage, or more specifically what you say - delegate maintenance AND continuinty determinations to CalTrans as opposed to through the legislative process. Route 39 is one of many (Route 93 in Richmond being another) that would benefit from not having signage dependent primarily on whether legislation gives the route to CalTrans or not.
Quote from: Bickendan on February 21, 2010, 02:33:38 AM
^There, problem solved.
Next, restoring US 99 in California. ODOT will probably jump on it (they did, after all, mistakenly put up US 99E shields on I-5 during the freeway reconstruction south of Salem about 10 years ago...).
And don't forget that US 99 sign in Sacramento that was up for about a month!
Quote from: TheStranger on February 21, 2010, 02:49:05 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 20, 2010, 08:23:48 PM
I don't understand why states unnecessarily burden their highway department with this sort of thing. States should empower their highway department (like Ohio does, making it illegal to perform speed limit changes without consulting ODOT) instead of neutering it by requiring all route number and maintenance changes to be performed through the state legislature.
It's more a historical artifact - before the 1930s (when signed routes were first created in California!) and dating as far back as the 1910s, the legislative route numbers were used to determine what was maintained by CalTrans, i.e. LRN 2 referred to much of US 101 in the state.
Why this wasn't done away with during the 1964 renumbering though, I don't know - that would have been a prime opportunity to allow state maintenance to be tangentially related to signage, or more specifically what you say - delegate maintenance AND continuinty determinations to CalTrans as opposed to through the legislative process. Route 39 is one of many (Route 93 in Richmond being another) that would benefit from not having signage dependent primarily on whether legislation gives the route to CalTrans or not.
The legislative definition of highways would seem to be a burden. Nevada's signed routes also used to be legislatively defined...each route had it's own entry when the state switched over to Nevada Revised Statutes. The legislative definitions remained until the renumbering in 1976. From what I've gathered, it's possible that many legislatively defined routes might not have been owned or maintained by NDOT...If that was the case, it sure seems like a logistical nightmare for the DOT.
Quote from: roadfro on February 21, 2010, 03:40:46 AM
The legislative definition of highways would seem to be a burden. Nevada's signed routes also used to be legislatively defined...each route had it's own entry when the state switched over to Nevada Revised Statutes. The legislative definitions remained until the renumbering in 1976. From what I've gathered, it's possible that many legislatively defined routes might not have been owned or maintained by NDOT...If that was the case, it sure seems like a logistical nightmare for the DOT.
Oregon still has a legislative numbering/naming system very much like the pre-1964 California system (where signed routes were simply placed on top of existing, unsigned legislative numbers - keeping in mind that in California, the automobile associations, the CSAA and ACSC, did the signing in the early days)...I want to say Minnesota also does legislative numbering but can't say for certain.
I'm not sure what the benefits are for retaining such a setup today, as it seems to significantly hinder DOT flexibility. It also can affect seemingly unrelated details in strange ways - the exit numbering for I-380 (which includes an unlikely, but long-proposed extension west to Pacifica) as compared to Route 14's (which does not incorporate a legislatively proposed, but dormant extension south from I-5 to Malibu) is one example.
Also, oddly enough, Route 39's legislative definition DOES include the Fullerton gap, which was shown as unsigned in 1940s maps, signed in the mid-80s, and unsigned since. In that case, in a logical world, Hacienda Road and Azusa Avenue from I-10 to Route 72 would be signed as Route 39, but maintained by Los Angeles County...if only that's how things functioned out here.
Quote from: Bickendan on February 21, 2010, 02:33:38 AM
^There, problem solved.
Next, restoring US 99 in California. ODOT will probably jump on it (they did, after all, mistakenly put up US 99E shields on I-5 during the freeway reconstruction south of Salem about 10 years ago...).
That was probably the contractor's error, not ODOT's, not that ODOT doesn't make this mistake often. To my everlasting regret, they were quickly corrected before I could get pictures.
Actually, I have some contact with people at AzDOT, and they seem friendlier than those at Caltrans; I also sent them my US-160 reroute/extension and US-163 renumbering idea. While I haven't actually heard back from them, I haven't written them for a while.
Quote from: Duke87 on February 20, 2010, 10:41:04 PM
Another issue that would need to be addressed is what to do with the ~20 miles of existing US 60 between Hope and I-10.
I'd be tempted to say that you could go with AZ-62, AZ-110 (think I-10 connector), or AZ-360, showing some numerical connection to its former route.
Quote from: Rover_0 on February 22, 2010, 02:01:55 PM
Actually, I have some contact with people at AzDOT, and they seem friendlier than those at Caltrans; I also sent them my US-160 reroute/extension and US-163 renumbering idea. While I haven't actually heard back from them, I haven't written them for a while.
That doesn't seem very friendly to me... :biggrin:
Quote from: xonhulu on February 22, 2010, 06:21:06 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on February 22, 2010, 02:01:55 PM
Actually, I have some contact with people at AzDOT, and they seem friendlier than those at Caltrans; I also sent them my US-160 reroute/extension and US-163 renumbering idea. While I haven't actually heard back from them, I haven't written them for a while.
That doesn't seem very friendly to me... :biggrin:
I know, but it's friendly in the sense that they really haven't tried to stuff the same rhetoric down my throat like Caltrans has.
I like the idea!
Quote from: xonhulu on February 20, 2010, 02:17:01 AM
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on February 20, 2010, 02:03:59 AM
Heck, if you are going to bring back US 60, why not bring back US 91 and kill CA 91 while you are at it?Perhaps extend US 60 further into California, but California 60 stays.Period.
Impossible: California doesn't allow route duplication, so you couldn't have both US 60 and CA 60 as distinct routes. The only exceptions I can think of are state route extensions of interstates (CA 15, 710, 110) and the odd I-238/CA 238 situation.
I wouldn't say impossible. US 60 could just become CA 60 at I-10, sure it would overlap I-10 for a little bit but...
QuoteQuote from: xonhulu on February 20, 2010, 12:17:01 AM
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on February 20, 2010, 12:03:59 AM
Heck, if you are going to bring back US 60, why not bring back US 91 and kill CA 91 while you are at it?Perhaps extend US 60 further into California, but California 60 stays.Period.
Impossible: California doesn't allow route duplication, so you couldn't have both US 60 and CA 60 as distinct routes. The only exceptions I can think of are state route extensions of interstates (CA 15, 710, 110) and the odd I-238/CA 238 situation.
I wouldn't say impossible. US 60 could just become CA 60 at I-10, sure it would overlap I-10 for a little bit but...
Beyond that, Caltrans doesn't distinguish between I-/US/SRs . I-15 can continue as SR 15 because the Legislature formally considers the whole thing "SR 15." US-60 could pick up SR-60 shields wherever it wants, (or where the AASHTO doesn't want US-60) because the Legislature would still consider the whole thing to be "SR 60." The US (or interstate, where applicable) shields are just an AASHTO/FHWA bonus that in Caltrans legislation does not exist.
Quote from: TheStranger on February 21, 2010, 02:49:05 AMWhy this wasn't done away with during the 1964 renumbering though, I don't know - that would have been a prime opportunity to allow state maintenance to be tangentially related to signage, or more specifically what you say - delegate maintenance AND continuinty determinations to CalTrans as opposed to through the legislative process. Route 39 is one of many (Route 93 in Richmond being another) that would benefit from not having signage dependent primarily on whether legislation gives the route to CalTrans or not.
I think part of the motivation is to take away a potential political football. If the state routes are legislatively determined, Caltrans can't be attacked for abuse of discretion in creating or taking away a state route.
In Kansas the KDOT secretary has the legal discretion to create and eliminate state routes, but this is subject to a mileage cap (10,000 miles) and a cap per county (route mileage equal to the distances north-south and east-west through the county) from which only Sedgwick, Johnson, and (I think) Shawnee counties (whose population centers are, respectively, Wichita, Kansas City, and Topeka) are exempt. Route adjustments tend to be small in scope and to occur with highway relocations and expansions, so that the route mileage per county stays more or less the same.
In practice much the same happens in California because the legislature specifies routes only by points passed through, which gives Caltrans the discretion to identify traversable routings.
In Oregon, a transportation commission has the final say on routes, although they pretty much rubber-stamp route changes proposed by ODOT. I suppose the state legislature could dictate these things, though, in much the same way Congress puts designations into law on occasion, but this hasn't happened in my memory.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 07, 2010, 05:46:25 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on February 21, 2010, 02:49:05 AMWhy this wasn't done away with during the 1964 renumbering though, I don't know - that would have been a prime opportunity to allow state maintenance to be tangentially related to signage, or more specifically what you say - delegate maintenance AND continuinty determinations to CalTrans as opposed to through the legislative process. Route 39 is one of many (Route 93 in Richmond being another) that would benefit from not having signage dependent primarily on whether legislation gives the route to CalTrans or not.
I think part of the motivation is to take away a potential political football. If the state routes are legislatively determined, Caltrans can't be attacked for abuse of discretion in creating or taking away a state route.
I wonder how that compares to say, the situation in Massachusetts (where the DOT determines routings regardless of who maintains them, so that sections can be city-maintained if need be). I do think that on a navigational standpoint, the extra layer of approval by the legislature here is extremely inflexible.
There is good background on the issue here:
http://cpr.ca.gov/CPR_Report/Issues_and_Recommendations/Chapter_4_Infrastructure/INF13.html
The impression I get is that Caltrans has too many surface-street state highways because it can't get the locals to take them over. In terms of navigation I think probably the best short-term solution is just not to sign these unrelinquished lengths.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 07, 2010, 06:30:01 PM
There is good background on the issue here:
http://cpr.ca.gov/CPR_Report/Issues_and_Recommendations/Chapter_4_Infrastructure/INF13.html
The impression I get is that Caltrans has too many surface-street state highways because it can't get the locals to take them over. In terms of navigation I think probably the best short-term solution is just not to sign these unrelinquished lengths.
Well, I meant more this: since most of the relinquishments tend to create a Massachusetts-style situation anyway (i.e. the Route 39 legislative definition at present, in which "signs pointing to Route 39" must be retained on non-state maintained segments such as in Azusa)...why not separate route definition and maintenance obligations, as opposed to having them so tied together at present?
For that matter, it's funny you mentioned "not signing unrelinquished road" since CalTrans DOES sign Route 14U along old US 6 (Sierra Highway) in portions, despite that being completely devoid of navigational value.
I appreciate the argument that US 60 could be beneficial to the economies of Parker, 29 Palms, Riverside, etc. . Good point! That could ease traffic along I-10 and provide an historic alternative to busy interstate traffic. ALSO, why not make the longest US highway (US 6) a true coast to coast highway again. Close to the Nevada border, amend six to replace CA 120, thru Yosemite, Oakdale, Manteca,Tracy, and at Hayward, follow CA 92 over the San Mateo Bridge (toll) over the coast range and truncate at Half Moon Bay,, right on the Pacific. Wow.
I know it's been a while, but school (college) has been keeping me busy with other things. However, since school is out, I'm going to resume this again, by contacting Caltrans and AzDOT, and making an online petition (FWIW), which I would show the site to for those in the affected areas (Parker (AZ), 29 Palms, Yucca Valley, etc.) through the opinions in the local newspapers. I'll show the link when it is up and going.
The person at Caltrans has said that this could be signed into law as such, so I'm going to let them know about the petition as well. Thoughts?
Another question: Who would I direct the petition at: Caltrans, or somewhere else in the California Gov't.?
Personally, I'd think the best bet would be to contact the local governments in the affected areas directly, and try to get their support by explaining how this would benefit them. If you can present your arguments in person at a city council meeting, so much the better. Woo the Chambers of Commerce. If the cities are behind you, and strongly support the idea, then you'll have a much more cohesive base of support, and they can escalate that support to the upper levels of government.
That's probably the point you should contact the local newspapers (not the editorial section, the actual reporters) and see if you can score an interview. They could make it a human interest piece to run on a slow day ("A Man, A Plan, A Road: Rover_0's Ambitious Plan To Bring US-60 Back Into California"). From there, there's several routes you can take. You can get Caltrans and ADOT involved and go the traditional route, seeking approval from AASHTO, or you can get the CA legislature involved. If you really want this done, and don't care how, you could get some federal representatives involved and Shuster it through.
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 28, 2010, 07:31:29 PM
Personally, I'd think the best bet would be to contact the local governments in the affected areas directly, and try to get their support by explaining how this would benefit them. If you can present your arguments in person at a city council meeting, so much the better. Woo the Chambers of Commerce. If the cities are behind you, and strongly support the idea, then you'll have a much more cohesive base of support, and they can escalate that support to the upper levels of government.
That's probably the point you should contact the local newspapers (not the editorial section, the actual reporters) and see if you can score an interview. They could make it a human interest piece to run on a slow day ("A Man, A Plan, A Road: Rover_0's Ambitious Plan To Bring US-60 Back Into California"). From there, there's several routes you can take. You can get Caltrans and ADOT involved and go the traditional route, seeking approval from AASHTO, or you can get the CA legislature involved. If you really want this done, and don't care how, you could get some federal representatives involved and Shuster it through.
Well, the person at Caltrans said that I would need to get a Legislator to sponsor it, and then get it sent through from there. I certainly don't want to Shuster it through, but what I was thinking was that:
1.) I could start the online petition and direct it at the Legislators involved
2.) Put words in it mentioning the legislative change from Route 62 to Route 60 (in California) and Route 72 to Route US-60 (in Arizona)
3.) Have the legislators sponsor it, hopefully getting the legislature to sign it
4.) Let Caltrans and AzDOT to get in touch with AASHTO and approve the routing.
However, directing it at the Chambers of Commerce in the affected cities and presenting it to them (though not in person; I am in Utah) and linking this idea and the US-191 extension that happened in 1982-ish, and pointing out how this helped the communities affected there. What are your thoughts, Scott?
Well, part of the problem is that online petitions can be signed by anyone, whether or not they live in the affected area, so they don't really carry a lot of weight with people. I would contact the Chambers of Commerce and local governments directly (by phone if at all possible), citing the 191 example as necessary. Try not to let on that you're from Utah; that might raise their guard. Legislators, too, may be unwilling to work with you if you are not one of their constituents, which is why I recommend going through the local governments. Legislators are a lot more willing to listen to "here's 16 local and county governments, one out-of-state legislator, and 5 chambers of commerce wanting me to do something" versus "here's one guy with an internet petition".
I'd probably avoid the internet petition entirely. I can't think of a single instance where an internet petition has actually worked- if anything I'd argue it detracts from the credibility of the proposal.
Your absolute best bet is to convince those that are actually affected (you are not) that there is a true need for it to happen and get them riled up about it. Pointing to US-191 as needed while contacting every single community along the proposed routing is probably your best bet. The best you can hope to do is convince the local communities that this is something they really want-you'll have to kick into full-on salesman mode here and then having those communities contact their legislator to have him fight the battle. That said, I wouldn't go emailing towns all willy-nilly either- you've basically got one shot to appear credible, and after that you'll just be ignored. I also wouldn't send a blanket email- try to tailor each one so it sounds like you know something about each individual community and you're not just some guy from Utah who wants to see US-60 moved to a road he's never driven on (you'd be amazed what a couple sentences that show some semblance of local awareness can do).
Your biggest challenge is going to be establishing a true sense of need- cold calling for sales is pretty difficult, especially when it's not entirely clear that the change is necessary (so much as "it would be cool to see"). You have the US-191 example- I'd make sure I go in armed with good numbers and possibly testimonial from some of those towns along the 191 corridor (you may email them to find out how they feel that redesignation has helped business), and maybe try to find other examples.
On the bright side, this is a fairly inexpensive proposition- it's not like you're asking for new road construction, so I do see it as something that is actually possible if you just get the locals marginally riled up.
As an aside, one of the arguments I can see just by looking at the map, and I'm not sure if it's one you've thought about, is that at least from the California side the addition of a US Route designation may convince more people to take (proposed) 60 to get to the tourist destination of Lake Havasu instead of using I-10/Arizona 95 or I-40/Arizona 95. If it were me, and I were arguing the case on the California side, I'd try to get the proposed 60 corridor pimped out as the "Fastest Way to Havasu" in much the same way Wyoming 89 is proudly billed as the fastest route from Yellowstone to Salt Lake (official WyDOT signage directs folks down 89 to get to Salt Lake from Yellowstone, and lots of billboards and the like say "Exit Here for Joe's Motel along Highway 89, the fastest route to Yellowstone!"). That's one tangible way to convince the towns along the route that there's legitimate money to be made by such a redesignation. Now, it is a clear violation of AASHTO policy to take a US Route designation just to make money off of it, but technically that routing would be the shortest and most direct (if not the fastest) and would facilitate interstate commerce, so it is a legitimate claim.