I guess this is a pretty obvious question, but when Caltrans relinquishes a route to a local area, does that mean that section of the numbered highway no longer officially exists?
CA-19, for example, has a few segments that are relinquished. Does that mean CA-19 is officially a segmented route?
What do you mean by "officially a segmented route"? As far as I know, there's no official definition of existence as a numbered highway.
Quote from: NE2 on February 16, 2012, 10:31:58 PM
What do you mean by "officially a segmented route"? As far as I know, there's no official definition of existence as a numbered highway.
Using CA-19 as an example, what I meant was that in between its northern and southern terminus, some segments of the route have been relinquished by Caltrans. What I'm asking is if when this happens, those segments of the route cease to be part of the legal definition, which would then make said route exist in multiple segments.
If you're asking about the legal definition, look up the legal definition! But the legal definition is not the only one - there's also the route as signed, and the route as maintained.
Quote from: NE2 on February 16, 2012, 10:55:37 PM
If you're asking about the legal definition, look up the legal definition! But the legal definition is not the only one - there's also the route as signed, and the route as maintained.
I believe when a route is "relinquished" to a local agency (a city or county), maintenance becomes the responsibility of the local agency. When the CA-85 freeway was opened in 1994, old CA-85 (De Anza Blvd/Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road) was relinquished and turned over to the cities of Cupertino, San Jose and Saratoga. Caltrans did agree to repave the entire route from Stevens Creek Blvd to CA-9 before turning over the road to the cities.
Yes - that's the definition of "relinquished" - transfer of maintenance.
Quillz is assuming the existence of a One True Definition of a route, which does not exist in the real world.
Quote from: myosh_tino on February 17, 2012, 01:59:51 AM
Quote from: NE2 on February 16, 2012, 10:55:37 PM
If you're asking about the legal definition, look up the legal definition! But the legal definition is not the only one - there's also the route as signed, and the route as maintained.
I believe when a route is "relinquished" to a local agency (a city or county), maintenance becomes the responsibility of the local agency. When the CA-85 freeway was opened in 1994, old CA-85 (De Anza Blvd/Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road) was relinquished and turned over to the cities of Cupertino, San Jose and Saratoga. Caltrans did agree to repave the entire route from Stevens Creek Blvd to CA-9 before turning over the road to the cities.
Okay, this is what I was wondering. I was incorrectly assuming that a relinquished section of a route meant that it no longer existed as part of the larger signed highway. Thanks for the info.
As I said, read the legislative description:
Quote
(d) (1) Any portion of Route 19 relinquished pursuant to this section shall cease to be a state highway on the effective date of the relinquishment.
(2) The portion of Route 19 relinquished under paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) may not be considered for future adoption under Section 81.
(3) For the portion of Route 19 relinquished under paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), the city shall ensure the continuity of traffic flow, including any traffic signal progression, and shall maintain signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 19.
(e) The relinquished former portions of Route 19 within the Cities of Downey, Long Beach, and Pico Rivera are not state highways and are not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the relinquished former portions of Route 19, the Cities of Downey, Long Beach, and Pico Rivera shall maintain within their respective jurisdictions signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 19.
Quote from: Quillz on February 17, 2012, 05:34:17 PM
Okay, this is what I was wondering. I was incorrectly assuming that a relinquished section of a route meant that it no longer existed as part of the larger signed highway. Thanks for the info.
It seems this is entirely a case-by-case thing - i.e. old Route 85 (which had been Route 9 pre-1964) in Saratoga is NOT a state route anymore (as 85 was finally placed on the Stevens Creek Freeway when that was built), but some of the newer relinquishments demand continued signage.
This is another case why the Massachusetts approach of route signage/designation not being entirely coincidental with state maintenance would be so much more useful than the legislative definitions in use in California for decades (that force micro-segmenting of routes like Route 19).
Quote from: Quillz on February 17, 2012, 05:34:17 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on February 17, 2012, 01:59:51 AM
Quote from: NE2 on February 16, 2012, 10:55:37 PM
If you're asking about the legal definition, look up the legal definition! But the legal definition is not the only one - there's also the route as signed, and the route as maintained.
I believe when a route is "relinquished" to a local agency (a city or county), maintenance becomes the responsibility of the local agency. When the CA-85 freeway was opened in 1994, old CA-85 (De Anza Blvd/Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road) was relinquished and turned over to the cities of Cupertino, San Jose and Saratoga. Caltrans did agree to repave the entire route from Stevens Creek Blvd to CA-9 before turning over the road to the cities.
Okay, this is what I was wondering. I was incorrectly assuming that a relinquished section of a route meant that it no longer existed as part of the larger signed highway. Thanks for the info.
I haven't seen it in person, but I was looking at a photo log of the I-105 freeway, and there was a sign pictured at the Lakewood Blvd. exit where the 19 had been removed and its shadow was quite evident. So, even though the statute requires the cities to which the road is relinquished to maintain route markings, CalTrans removed the marking from the intersecting freeway. Sounds a little like micro-segmenting to me.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on February 19, 2012, 11:26:22 AM
I haven't seen it in person, but I was looking at a photo log of the I-105 freeway, and there was a sign pictured at the Lakewood Blvd. exit where the 19 had been removed and its shadow was quite evident. So, even though the statute requires the cities to which the road is relinquished to maintain route markings, CalTrans removed the marking from the intersecting freeway. Sounds a little like micro-segmenting to me.
I've always been of the mind that micro-segmenting is absolutely useless from a navigational standpoint. Odd gaps between routes when a road exists to connect them are annoying (Route 84 between Livermore and Antioch comes to mind) but inconsistent marking created by legislation doesn't do anyone any favors.
Sacramento has an example of this with Route 160's gap between I-5 in southern Sacramento and the 16th Street Bridge north of downtown - especially when the exit numbers for the ex-US 40 freeway north of downtown STILL reference the relinquished miles!
While the pre-1964 legislative route numbers (for maintenance purposes only) vs. CSAA/ACSC route assignments wasn't a great setup, it at least guaranteed that micro-segmenting wasn't a problem. I wouldn't mind legislative route definitions if they weren't so pivotal for in-the-field signage.
As part of doing my California Highways site, I monitor the legislative definitions, so I think I can answer this. In the past, they used to actually update the legislative definition to divide it into segments when a portion was relinquished or rerouted. Today... not so much. Instead, they note the authority to relinquish in the legislative definition (as this does require changing the definition), but the actual relinquishment occurs months later after they have done sufficient work on the route for the city/county to accept it. They don't always go back and update the legislative definition (but I note the actual relinquishment on my site, if they bothered to consult me :-)), but rarely they do.
Quote from: Quillz on February 16, 2012, 10:11:10 PM
I guess this is a pretty obvious question, but when Caltrans relinquishes a route to a local area, does that mean that section of the numbered highway no longer officially exists?
CA-19, for example, has a few segments that are relinquished. Does that mean CA-19 is officially a segmented route?
Usually when Caltrans relinquishes a route, they remove the route shield from any freeway signage as well. I assume this is to release them from any liability of ownership from that roadway.
I just drove the west bound 105 from the beginning of the freeway and noticed something very "District 7ish" (I though about positing this in the Does Caltrans D7 speak English anymore thread). Approaching Lakewood Blvd (former CA-19), there are 4 original signs that show that the Route 19 shield has been removed.
At the Woodruff Ave overcrossing:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.913413,-118.116417&spn=0.005111,0.01929&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=33.913951,-118.116251&panoid=I1day5DHXHvf5abvzV3CcQ&cbp=12,272.38,,0,2.38
At the Bellflower Blvd overcrossing (you can clearly see the outline of the old shield):
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.91336,-118.125107&spn=0.005111,0.01929&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=33.913363,-118.124999&panoid=tswYtH7BHzunoeWexulthg&cbp=12,271.1,,1,-10.83
At the Clark Ave overcrossing (again you can clearly see the outline of the old shield):
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.913253,-118.133926&spn=0.005111,0.01929&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=33.913252,-118.133817&panoid=fhmswrkwnMHus-PWLWjI5g&cbp=12,271.4,,1,-8.63
And at the gore point, the original sign also had the shield removed:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.913293,-118.135726&spn=0.001418,0.002411&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=33.913263,-118.135635&panoid=EGog-wOqTiHM2RDNe86LlQ&cbp=12,274.85,,0,-21.38
Then, the old signs at the gore point have been replaced with new ones. For some reason, they put the route 19 shield back on. Go figure!!!
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.913253,-118.134565&spn=0.001418,0.002411&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=33.913253,-118.135392&panoid=rcZ8vYYZ3gKi_sbVhzF6GA&cbp=12,285.42,,1,-4.6
Quote from: AndyMax25 on December 31, 2014, 01:14:45 AM
Quote from: Quillz on February 16, 2012, 10:11:10 PM
I guess this is a pretty obvious question, but when Caltrans relinquishes a route to a local area, does that mean that section of the numbered highway no longer officially exists?
CA-19, for example, has a few segments that are relinquished. Does that mean CA-19 is officially a segmented route?
Usually when Caltrans relinquishes a route, they remove the route shield from any freeway signage as well. I assume this is to release them from any liability of ownership from that roadway.
I would disagree with this. In contrast to your example of CA-19 signage being removed along I-105, on I-405 all of the replaced signage has retained CA-19, and on the remaining old signage, CA-19 has only been removed from one sign.
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8033812,-118.1372141,3a,75y,288.71h,89.16t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sUGSulBh8rEnjrHU_46hphA!2e0
(new signage still showing CA-19)
Relinquished portions of CA-91, CA-107 and CA-2 continue to be signed along I-405 (including new signage), and there are relatively new CA-91 trailblazer signs still posted along Artesia Boulevard in Redondo Beach; CA-39 is still posted along signs on I-210...I could go on and on. Think how many years it took before CA-42 signage was removed (and in the case of I-5, only because the exit itself has been physically removed).
(granted, this may be more about District 7 being lazy and simply replicating old sign layouts rather than putting any thought into the matter)
This is a more recent relinquishment, but CA-82 (the southernmost portion) is still signed from US-101, I-280 and CA-87.
Closer to the original topic, I agree that the idea of relinquishment, while fine for determining who maintains a route, does nothing to help motorists (although many of the routes with relinquished sections no longer serve the original purpose of a signed and numbered state highway anymore). I'd rather see a legislative definition along the lines of:
Route 1 is from:
a) Route 5 in San Juan Capistrano to Route 101 in Oxnard.
-1) The portions of Route 1 within the cities of Dana Point, Newport Beach and Oxnard shall be locally maintained per section x.
And section x has language that specifies that local jurisdictions that maintain state routes are mandated to maintain signage, signal progression, etc.
Quote from: DTComposer on December 31, 2014, 02:11:13 AM
Quote from: AndyMax25 on December 31, 2014, 01:14:45 AM
Quote from: Quillz on February 16, 2012, 10:11:10 PM
I guess this is a pretty obvious question, but when Caltrans relinquishes a route to a local area, does that mean that section of the numbered highway no longer officially exists?
CA-19, for example, has a few segments that are relinquished. Does that mean CA-19 is officially a segmented route?
Usually when Caltrans relinquishes a route, they remove the route shield from any freeway signage as well. I assume this is to release them from any liability of ownership from that roadway.
I would disagree with this. In contrast to your example of CA-19 signage being removed along I-105, on I-405 all of the replaced signage has retained CA-19, and on the remaining old signage, CA-19 has only been removed from one sign.
On a related note, it took over 10 years between the official decommissioning of SR 209 (mostly Rosecrans St) and 274 (Balboa Ave) in 2001 and the removal of the route shield from associated freeway guide signs by 2013.
Yes, we should have touring routes in California. Even if it's not Caltrans maintained, let's sign the route, but perhaps to make it clear that it's not state maintained, maybe a different color shield.
Quote from: mrsman on January 05, 2015, 11:33:06 AM
Yes, we should have touring routes in California. Even if it's not Caltrans maintained, let's sign the route, but perhaps to make it clear that it's not state maintained, maybe a different color shield.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcaltrafficsigns.com%2Fpictures%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10001%2F024.jpg&hash=66117b026dffd8d03d8a7a30ce68108fa9a6d8a9)
from http://caltrafficsigns.com/pictures/displayimage.php?album=11&pid=235
Obviously this wouldn't work with modern shields, but replacing the CALIFORNIA with COUNTY or CITY would.
Quote from: NE2 on January 05, 2015, 12:19:52 PM
Quote from: mrsman on January 05, 2015, 11:33:06 AM
Yes, we should have touring routes in California. Even if it's not Caltrans maintained, let's sign the route, but perhaps to make it clear that it's not state maintained, maybe a different color shield.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcaltrafficsigns.com%2Fpictures%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10001%2F024.jpg&hash=66117b026dffd8d03d8a7a30ce68108fa9a6d8a9)
from http://caltrafficsigns.com/pictures/displayimage.php?album=11&pid=235
Obviously this wouldn't work with modern shields, but replacing the CALIFORNIA with COUNTY or CITY would.
Or you could have a white shield (same spade shape) with green letters/numerals; in effect, "reverse video" of the traditional state highway shield.
Is CA-19 similar to CA-39? I think this might be another example where portions were relinquished by CalTrans. You have Beach Blvd, but then there is a significant gap until the highway re-emerges north of the 10
They're sorta similar. CA-19 was one continuous route (as signed, even though it's legislatively two routes) from Pasadena to Long Beach, that has had its functionality replaced by I-710 and I-605, so the relinquishments are about cities re-taking a street that no longer needs to be a state highway.
CA-39 has never been a continuous route in the field: originally the section over the San Jose Hills was supposed to be via Hacienda and Colima, now it's supposedly to be Harbor Boulevard, but nothing has ever been signed. However, the functionality of CA-39 still remains, since the alternative parallel routes (I-605 and CA-57) would be a significant detour. North of there, it could be that the relinquishment to Asuza is a sign that Caltrans doesn't ever see the re-opening of the northernmost portion of the route, and therefore the purpose of the route is lost.
Thanks, DTC. That's good information.
Quote from: DTComposer on January 06, 2015, 04:04:52 PM
They're sorta similar. CA-19 was one continuous route (as signed, even though it's legislatively two routes) from Pasadena to Long Beach, that has had its functionality replaced by I-710 and I-605, so the relinquishments are about cities re-taking a street that no longer needs to be a state highway.
CA-39 has never been a continuous route in the field: originally the section over the San Jose Hills was supposed to be via Hacienda and Colima, now it's supposedly to be Harbor Boulevard, but nothing has ever been signed. However, the functionality of CA-39 still remains, since the alternative parallel routes (I-605 and CA-57) would be a significant detour. North of there, it could be that the relinquishment to Asuza is a sign that Caltrans doesn't ever see the re-opening of the northernmost portion of the route, and therefore the purpose of the route is lost.
But the gap between Whittier Blvd. and CA-60 in the old days, while not signed as CA-39, was signed as County Route
N9 N8. So we have a county route signed to make a completion of a state highway where there is no state maintenance.
And as far as CA-19 goes, while I prefer the touring route, I can see where CA-19 is superflous. First, as you said, it's pretty close to the 605, so it's not needed. And secondly, CA-19 is one boulevard. You can drive all the way from the Long Beach Traffic Circle to I-210 without turning at all. It is just a surface street at this point, no different than Paramount Blvd or Bellflower Blvd except that it goes all the way to the SGV. But there is no difference in the quality of the road.
CA-42 was removed from Manchester/Firestone, which I find to be no real different from Florence or Imperial Highway, just another arterial street.
Quote from: mrsman on January 09, 2015, 02:30:38 PM
But the gap between Whittier Blvd. and CA-60 in the old days, while not signed as CA-39, was signed as County Route N9. So we have a county route signed to make a completion of a state highway where there is no state maintenance.
Could have been N39 (like J59 and J132).
Quote from: mrsman on January 09, 2015, 02:30:38 PM
And as far as CA-19 goes, while I prefer the touring route, I can see where CA-19 is superflous. First, as you said, it's pretty close to the 605, so it's not needed. And secondly, CA-19 is one boulevard. You can drive all the way from the Long Beach Traffic Circle to I-210 without turning at all. It is just a surface street at this point, no different than Paramount Blvd or Bellflower Blvd except that it goes all the way to the SGV. But there is no difference in the quality of the road.
I would say the section that is legislatively Route 164 (but has never been signed as anything other than Route 19 in its 80 years of existence) still has some independent utility in much the same way that Route 83 does out in the Inland Empire - major arterial with no nearby freeway alternates. South of Pico Rivera, 605 has indeed supplanted that half of the corridor.
Quote from: mrsman on January 09, 2015, 02:30:38 PM
CA-42 was removed from Manchester/Firestone, which I find to be no real different from Florence or Imperial Highway, just another arterial street.
It was removed specifically as a result of 105 being built (though it remained signed for years after the completion of the Century Freeway).
Quote from: TheStranger on January 09, 2015, 06:32:25 PM
Quote from: mrsman on January 09, 2015, 02:30:38 PM
And as far as CA-19 goes, while I prefer the touring route, I can see where CA-19 is superflous. First, as you said, it's pretty close to the 605, so it's not needed. And secondly, CA-19 is one boulevard. You can drive all the way from the Long Beach Traffic Circle to I-210 without turning at all. It is just a surface street at this point, no different than Paramount Blvd or Bellflower Blvd except that it goes all the way to the SGV. But there is no difference in the quality of the road.
I would say the section that is legislatively Route 164 (but has never been signed as anything other than Route 19 in its 80 years of existence) still has some independent utility in much the same way that Route 83 does out in the Inland Empire - major arterial with no nearby freeway alternates. South of Pico Rivera, 605 has indeed supplanted that half of the corridor.
Quote from: mrsman on January 09, 2015, 02:30:38 PM
CA-42 was removed from Manchester/Firestone, which I find to be no real different from Florence or Imperial Highway, just another arterial street.
It was removed specifically as a result of 105 being built (though it remained signed for years after the completion of the Century Freeway).
In our more urban areas, like Metro LA, there is no real need for a signed arterial for many of the routes that used to be signed. The only highways that really need signed are freeways, and inter-regional routes, or perhaps following a route with lots of twists and turns.
So for the areas where CA-1 is relinquished, absolutely sign it as a touring route, because of its importance in navigation.
But I'm not going to cry over losing CA-213 Western Ave or CA-187 Venice Blvd or CA-170 Highland Ave. These are wasted designations IMO. I'd much rather have a designation to cover the semi-freeway La Cienega Blvd over the Baldwin Hills.
Quote from: NE2 on January 09, 2015, 04:36:22 PM
Quote from: mrsman on January 09, 2015, 02:30:38 PM
But the gap between Whittier Blvd. and CA-60 in the old days, while not signed as CA-39, was signed as County Route N9. So we have a county route signed to make a completion of a state highway where there is no state maintenance.
Could have been N39 (like J59 and J132).
I agree, it would have been easier to follow and that's the whole point of signing highways IMO. It should be primarily to help with navigation.
And I made a mistake in my earlier post, it's N8 (N9 is Kanan-Dume Rd in Malibu). It if it was N39, I would not have gotten it wrong.
Quote from: mrsman on January 11, 2015, 08:09:21 AM
But I'm not going to cry over losing CA-213 Western Ave or CA-187 Venice Blvd or CA-170 Highland Ave. These are wasted designations IMO. I'd much rather have a designation to cover the semi-freeway La Cienega Blvd over the Baldwin Hills.
La Cienega is the traversable routing for that portion of CA-170. The Highland Avenue portion (CA-2 to US-101) has already been relinquished.
The problem with signing La Cienega is that it's an expressway in the middle, but on each end it's a busy arterial that will only become more congested if it's signed as an alternate route between LAX and Hollywood/Fairfax/etc. If the expressway section could be extended on both ends (to I-10 and I-405) then absolutely sign it.
Quote from: mrsman on January 11, 2015, 08:12:19 AM
Quote from: NE2 on January 09, 2015, 04:36:22 PM
Quote from: mrsman on January 09, 2015, 02:30:38 PM
But the gap between Whittier Blvd. and CA-60 in the old days, while not signed as CA-39, was signed as County Route N9. So we have a county route signed to make a completion of a state highway where there is no state maintenance.
Could have been N39 (like J59 and J132).
I agree, it would have been easier to follow and that's the whole point of signing highways IMO. It should be primarily to help with navigation.
And I made a mistake in my earlier post, it's N8 (N9 is Kanan-Dume Rd in Malibu). It if it was N39, I would not have gotten it wrong.
N8 is La Mirada Boulevard to Colima Road - the original CA-39 traversable routing was Hacienda to Colima (Hacienda being a much windier route, FWIW), so N8 wasn't signed totally on top of CA-39.
That said, yes, using county (or city) markers could help from a navigational standpoint - but California is not really all that good at signing county routes in the field, so they're not really familiar to the majority of drivers. I think it would be easier to go with a modified state shield (with the inverted colors, perhaps).
Why is there a CA-123 San Pablo blvd in Richmond, San Pablo and El Cerrito. It's just an arterial that parallels to I-80 in the East Bay. Also CA-141 in Vallejo became a city road at some point once I-780 came into play. Ca-262 in Fremont or Milpitas a short road.
How about CA-61 Oakland it still exists due to the proposed Southern Crossing to Candlestick Park near US-101. I heard of CA-61 was supposed to be a Bridge or Tunnel from Oakland to Brisbane,Ca. But that never came into play.
Also CA-275 was an unsigned state route between US-50 to the State Capital in Sacramento but West Sacramento has CA-275 as a city route and city managed.
also I want some of what you're smoking
Technically La Tijera/La Cienega is signed as an alternate from the 405 to the 10 East, and it gets ridiculously congested at the south end. And La Brea Avenue to the east has a BGS pointing to Hollywood at the five-way intersection with Stocker Street and Overhill Drive. I doubt La Brea (which is just west of Highland) might have been an original routing for 170, though.
Mod Note: The topic "Signing of relinquished portions of California state routes" was split out from the "US-30 in California...wait, what?" thread. --Roadfro
Quote from: mrsman on February 24, 2015, 12:34:38 AM
The only exception to this would be where roads are multiplexed, but only one road is signed in the multiplexed section. An example is US 40 multiplexed with I-70 for a large portion of rural Colorado. US 40 is part of this road, but it is generally only signed as I-70. Yet, if someone wanted to follow US 40 from Utah to Kansas, you would need to know that you have to stay on I-70 for many miles, without a US 40 reassurance. There, the US 40 designation may be helpful on a map or Google maps.
Whether they should be signed on the streets is a different question. I've felt that Biz-80 was confusing and that signing the W-X as US 50 and the 29-30 as CA-51 would be best. But it must be singed that way on the highway before we see it signed that way on any map for the use of the general public.
Thats why bothers me when California insisting on removing state-signed routes through cities. The purpose is to remove state fiscal responsibility for maintaining the routes, but come on now. Not even a "To" marker. It's gets worse in Southern California when you have routes switching from CA-XXX to Interstate-XXX. Heck, it still irks me that they removed CA-160 from downtown Sacramento.
As for Business 80... there is actual historical significance as the route was originally Interstate 80 that went through Sacramento until ~1981 when they aborted the construction project and converted the existing section into a light rail station. A portion of that was even flagged TEMP-Interstate 80 because that portion is not up to Interstate standards for curves and exits. That convoluted history can be found elsewhere. And, as we all know, Business Routes do not need to meet Interstate standards.
Quote from: ZLoth on February 24, 2015, 05:46:08 PM
Quote from: mrsman on February 24, 2015, 12:34:38 AM
The only exception to this would be where roads are multiplexed, but only one road is signed in the multiplexed section. An example is US 40 multiplexed with I-70 for a large portion of rural Colorado. US 40 is part of this road, but it is generally only signed as I-70. Yet, if someone wanted to follow US 40 from Utah to Kansas, you would need to know that you have to stay on I-70 for many miles, without a US 40 reassurance. There, the US 40 designation may be helpful on a map or Google maps.
Whether they should be signed on the streets is a different question. I've felt that Biz-80 was confusing and that signing the W-X as US 50 and the 29-30 as CA-51 would be best. But it must be singed that way on the highway before we see it signed that way on any map for the use of the general public.
Thats why bothers me when California insisting on removing state-signed routes through cities. The purpose is to remove state fiscal responsibility for maintaining the routes, but come on now. Not even a "To" marker. It's gets worse in Southern California when you have routes switching from CA-XXX to Interstate-XXX. Heck, it still irks me that they removed CA-160 from downtown Sacramento.
As for Business 80... there is actual historical significance as the route was originally Interstate 80 that went through Sacramento until ~1981 when they aborted the construction project and converted the existing section into a light rail station. A portion of that was even flagged TEMP-Interstate 80 because that portion is not up to Interstate standards for curves and exits. That convoluted history can be found elsewhere. And, as we all know, Business Routes do not need to meet Interstate standards.
I agree, it would be nice if CA signed touring routes, even if they are no longer maintained by Caltrans. But keeping an old designation on a map is not helpful if the designation is removed from the field.
CA-160: it's a freeway connection to the north, it's a state rural road down to Rio Vista to the south, but no connection in the middle. A shame.
Quote from: mrsman on February 26, 2015, 08:40:53 AM
CA-160: it's a freeway connection to the north, it's a state rural road down to Rio Vista to the south, but no connection in the middle. A shame.
What I find strange is that there is precedent for new routes being created due to route gaps being left unfinished (Route 211 being assigned to the northernmost and only constructed portion of the never-finished Route 1 Lost Coast extension), yet the current standard is to have no continuity if cities decide to take on former state-maintained corridors.
The 160 freeway spur in North Sacramento should really be given its own number (and the rural section of 160 should have a logical north terminus at the Pocket Road interchange with I-5, not at the Sacramento city limit just south of the junction).
CalTrans should have mandated that cities taking the relinquished portions of routes maintain reassurance signs, whether by a county route marker or using the miner's spade with the city name instead of 'California'. Or hell, even a blue miner's spade.
Quote from: Bickendan on February 26, 2015, 12:14:04 PM
CalTrans should have mandated that cities taking the relinquished portions of routes maintain reassurance signs, whether by a county route marker or using the miner's spade with the city name instead of 'California'. Or hell, even a blue miner's spade.
The state legislature did mandate that the cities maintain signs. Didn't happen.
Quote from: NE2 on February 26, 2015, 12:28:49 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on February 26, 2015, 12:14:04 PM
CalTrans should have mandated that cities taking the relinquished portions of routes maintain reassurance signs, whether by a county route marker or using the miner's spade with the city name instead of 'California'. Or hell, even a blue miner's spade.
The state legislature did mandate that the cities maintain signs. Didn't happen.
Are you saying that there is a state law that requires cities to maintain the state highway shield on roads they maintain. I.e. in the example that we're discussing, the City of Sacramento would have to pay to keep CA-160 signs on 16th Street?
This really shouldn't be that hard. If you just simply didn't touch the signs that used to be there, there would be enough signs to guide the public without the need for new signs. But it seems that Caltrans is actively removing the signs. Which is why we have signage gaps.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=shc&group=00001-01000&file=300-635
Quote
460. (a) Route 160 is from:
(1) Route 4 near Antioch to the southern city limits of Sacramento.
(2) The American River in the City of Sacramento to Route 51.
(b) The relinquished former portion of Route 160 within the City of Sacramento is not a state highway and is not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the relinquished former portion of Route 160, the City of Sacramento shall maintain signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 160.
Quote from: dfwmapper on February 27, 2015, 03:34:14 AM
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=shc&group=00001-01000&file=300-635
Quote
460. (a) Route 160 is from:
(1) Route 4 near Antioch to the southern city limits of Sacramento.
(2) The American River in the City of Sacramento to Route 51.
(b) The relinquished former portion of Route 160 within the City of Sacramento is not a state highway and is not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the relinquished former portion of Route 160, the City of Sacramento shall maintain signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 160.
Yet despite the law, we see things like this:
http://goo.gl/maps/1pJ5j
And I know when I lived in the area in the late 90's that CA-160 was very well signed thru Downtown Sacramento, even through the turns:
Southbound_ 12th to F to 15th to Broadway to Freeport.
Northbound: Freeport to 21st to Broadway to 16th.
If the city just left the signs alone, it would be great. What happened, did Caltrans take away the signs when they abandoned maintenance? Why not just leave the signs where they were, they were perfectly fine.
So the abandonment of signing is very frustrating.
Quote from: mrsman on February 27, 2015, 05:25:50 PM
What happened, did Caltrans take away the signs when they abandoned maintenance?
For the few years that the button copy signs remained up for the 15th/16th Street exit on the WX Freeway section of 50/Business 80/99...the 160 shields were scraped off both eastbound and westbound on there. (Signs replaced in the last 3-4 years with retroreflective ones)
This topic led me to look at Daniel Faigin's CaHighways.org web site to provide an explanation for my seeming inability to navigate CA-79 between Beaumont and Hemet last week. Sure enough, the portion in San Jacinto is relinquished, and the portion in Hemet is available to be relinquished - subject, of course, to marking the old route through the cities. Well, I did catch the first left turn onto Ramona Parkway with the one route marker at the last second, but never saw the point where 79 turned off of that. Because (verified by GSV) it wasn't marked. Fortunately, Ramona Parkway runs into CA-74, so missing the turn just meant a couple of miles extra.
I'm not sure if I like the "touring route" concept, but where pieces of state highways are turned back to local entities, there needs to be some kind of standardized marker; even if different from the standard state route marker.
I believe that Caltrans should do the following whenever a state route is to be considered up for relinquishment:
Why is this highway being relinquished?
a) If the state highway is bypasses by a new highway or freeway, then the old route can be demapped and the highway number signs can be removed. [We don't need CA-42 along Firestone/Manchester when we have a brand new I-105 freeway a couple miles to the south.]
b) If the highway passes through a city and the city wants local control of maintenance, but traffic is still routed through the highway, then we need to have some way of navigation. Either put up signs that say "End Caltrans maintenance" and "Begin Caltrans maintenance" or put up different looking signs of the same number (blue miner spades) or renumber the highway "CA-79R". This is especially important where the state highway makes a significant turn along its route. It doesn't do anybody any good for drivers to get lost when following an old map just becuase the highway is now locally maintained.
c) If the highway passes through a large stretch of city and there are no significant turns along the route, then the route can be demapped completely or significantly truncated. A good example of this is CA-19. Lakewood/Rosemead is a very long straight street. Functionally, it's no different than nearby Bellflower Blvd or Paramount Blvd. Once you're on Lakewood/Rosemead you can pretty much follow the old routing of CA-19 just by sticking to the road. The state number is completely unnecessary except for highway nostalgia. Similarly CA-213 Western Ave, CA-107 Hawthorne Blvd, CA-187 Venice Blvd. Heck, the only surface streets in the LA basin that should still be signed as a state highway, IMO are CA-1, CA-110 along Arroyo Parkway in Pasadena, CA-126 west of I-5, CA-27 south of US 101, CA-39 north of I-210, CA-2 between 2 freeway and US 101, and CA-22 between I-405 and CA-1
d) For stretches like CA-160 and CA-90 the two remaining state maintained sections are now functionally different roads. The orphaned portion should probably be renumbered. As TheStranger earlier suggested, CA-160 should end at Pocket/I-5 and the CA-160 freeway can be renumbered. Similarly, CA-90 should exist along Imperial highway east of I-605, and the Marina Freeway should be renumbered.
Quote from: mrsman on March 02, 2015, 06:15:44 AM
c) If the highway passes through a large stretch of city and there are no significant turns along the route, then the route can be demapped completely or significantly truncated.
I don't know if I agree with this in all cases - certainly the unsigned Route 164 section of Route 19 is still independent enough to be different from any of the nearby freeway routings, and further north, and Route 238 is entirely a suburban arterial but an important one through Fremont and Hayward (especially with the freeway bypass proposal being nixed over time).
I do get why Route 82 south of I-880 in San Jose is no longer a state highway though.
Quote from: TheStranger on February 26, 2015, 11:27:08 AM
Quote from: mrsman on February 26, 2015, 08:40:53 AM
CA-160: it's a freeway connection to the north, it's a state rural road down to Rio Vista to the south, but no connection in the middle. A shame.
What I find strange is that there is precedent for new routes being created due to route gaps being left unfinished (Route 211 being assigned to the northernmost and only constructed portion of the never-finished Route 1 Lost Coast extension), yet the current standard is to have no continuity if cities decide to take on former state-maintained corridors.
The 160 freeway spur in North Sacramento should really be given its own number (and the rural section of 160 should have a logical north terminus at the Pocket Road interchange with I-5, not at the Sacramento city limit just south of the junction).
It's one thing to create a new alignment for a route that has technically already been completed like Route 1 has. It's another if Caltrans simply wants to get a highway off the SHS, which they do want to for nearly all the conventional highways they maintain, and as soon as possible. If the state could, they would unload all of Route 160 that isn't a freeway onto the local municipalities, but they're not all ready to add another roadway to their maintenance list, so the state can't force them to take the roads.
Quote from: emory on March 30, 2015, 02:33:55 AM
It's another if Caltrans simply wants to get a highway off the SHS, which they do want to for nearly all the conventional highways they maintain, and as soon as possible. If the state could, they would unload all of Route 160 that isn't a freeway onto the local municipalities, but they're not all ready to add another roadway to their maintenance list, so the state can't force them to take the roads.
Is this more for "conventional highways within urbanized areas" though? In 160's case, the section from Freeport to Antioch has navigational value (and is signed much better than the parallel 84 corridor) and I don't think there's been any push to have the small towns along the Sacramento River Delta take over maintenance on that portion of the route.
Last week, I drove down CA-84 from the IKEA in Sacramento to Rio Vista. There was no CA-84 reassurance marker until the intersection of CA-84 and CA-220. There was NO sign at the corner of Jefferson Road and Courtland Road indicating that I needed to turn right to continue on CA-84. In checking Google Streetview, that appears to be true since at least 2008, and I suspect much longer.
Quote from: ZLoth on April 01, 2015, 06:14:53 PM
Last week, I drove down CA-84 from the IKEA in Sacramento to Rio Vista. There was no CA-84 reassurance marker until the intersection of CA-84 and CA-220. There was NO sign at the corner of Jefferson Road and Courtland Road indicating that I needed to turn right to continue on CA-84. In checking Google Streetview, that appears to be true since at least 2008, and I suspect much longer.
I know that Route 84 within the West Sacramento city limits has been relinquished for a few years now - though not sure there were ever 84 signs along that area to begin with.
California (as well as other states) need to have a way of signing relinquished portions of state highways, state roads or state routes, especially in a case where the relinquished portion creates a "gap". CA-160 and CA-1 are great examples of this. Once a state desides to relinquish a route from its inventory then the signage should be changed to city or county signage. Florida already has a practice in place to place a letter "C-" in front of the route number. Granted the county signage is somewhat "unconventional" but it works especially in cases where the road is prominent but no longer warrants state route classification.
In indiana this is also a major issue.. Indiana also needs a system of county highways, and their roads are in horrible shape but those issues will be discussed elsewhere.
I do like how the city of Winnipeg has a system of city routes which greatly aid in wayfinding through the city and could be an example for other cities to use in helping people find their way. Other cities have done similar plans such as Pittsburgh's belt system and the charlotte highway 4. I even came up with a plan for Indianapolis to use with a special route marker, but I haven't posted it as of yet.
California should post signs at the end of state maintenance as are in some other states
Example:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lordsutch.com%2Froads%2Fphotos%2Fesm.jpg&hash=36c763915b6b502d5a4ea06750b78c2397714f0b)
Along with a city version of the route marker (white shield with black markings and the word city at the top) to denote that it is a city route not a california route. Begin state maintenance signs could be used with a green reassurance marker to resume the routing. For california highways that are being relinquished in their entirety (or truncated) these should be converted to the county highways program instead, and signed as such.
Quote from: Indyroads on April 09, 2015, 12:57:14 PM
Florida already has a practice in place to place a letter "C-" in front of the route number.
Only 30+ years ago. Now they use normal county shields.
I don't see the point in inventing a new style of shield (or adding a R) for this sort of thing, as the motorist doesn't really care who is maintaining the route. Either use the county pentagon marker, or just leave the green spades up.
Quote from: NE2 on April 09, 2015, 01:49:54 PM
Quote from: Indyroads on April 09, 2015, 12:57:14 PM
Florida already has a practice in place to place a letter "C-" in front of the route number.
Only 30+ years ago. Now they use normal county shields.
And in Florida it's more common for major local thoroughfares to get relinquished to the county, hence the frequent use of pentagon shields, whereas in California the cities take them over.
Quote from: NE2 on January 05, 2015, 12:19:52 PM
Quote from: mrsman on January 05, 2015, 11:33:06 AM
Yes, we should have touring routes in California. Even if it's not Caltrans maintained, let's sign the route, but perhaps to make it clear that it's not state maintained, maybe a different color shield.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcaltrafficsigns.com%2Fpictures%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10001%2F024.jpg&hash=66117b026dffd8d03d8a7a30ce68108fa9a6d8a9)
from http://caltrafficsigns.com/pictures/displayimage.php?album=11&pid=235
Obviously this wouldn't work with modern shields, but replacing the CALIFORNIA with COUNTY or CITY would.
Or could it be a coloured square or box sign, with a NON-DIECUT white spade, with a colour-coordinated number, perhaps green, blue, or even black box with white spade and matching number? Even my avatar poses that possibility...
Quote from: Bickendan on February 26, 2015, 12:14:04 PM
CalTrans should have mandated that cities taking the relinquished portions of routes maintain reassurance signs, whether by a county route marker or using the miner's spade with the city name instead of 'California'. Or hell, even a blue miner's spade.
I think blue and gold was a rejected colour scheme for the California route marker in 1964. Your idea of a different coloured miner's spade is a good idea.
I think that a non-die-cut marker -with a solid box carrying a contrasting spade and the number coloured like the box - might be such a solution.
Suppose a green, blue, or black box with a white spade and a colour-matched number - maybe even like my avatar - could be used for such a situation.
Quote from: Atomica on May 02, 2015, 07:35:49 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on February 26, 2015, 12:14:04 PM
CalTrans should have mandated that cities taking the relinquished portions of routes maintain reassurance signs, whether by a county route marker or using the miner's spade with the city name instead of 'California'. Or hell, even a blue miner's spade.
I think blue and gold was a rejected colour scheme for the California route marker in 1964. Your idea of a different coloured miner's spade is a good idea.
I think that a non-die-cut marker -with a solid box carrying a contrasting spade and the number coloured like the box - might be such a solution.
Suppose a green, blue, or black box with a white spade and a colour-matched number - maybe even like my avatar - could be used for such a situation.
How about the green spade without the state name, inside a yellow or white rectangle and the words "CITY MAINT." in small text below.
Quote from: Atomica on May 02, 2015, 07:23:06 AM
Or could it be a coloured square or box sign, with a NON-DIECUT white spade, with a colour-coordinated number, perhaps green, blue, or even black box with white spade and matching number? Even my avatar poses that possibility...
No, one nice thing about CA signage is that they go through the effort of cutting out the signs on US and miner spade shields. Let's not go backwards. I think that a simple "county maintained" banner would be better. Besides, at that point, there would be no need to remove the existing miner spade shields.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.568759,-121.102929,3a,75y,144.17h,54.14t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s_hpg_tSXoDn_8CgDdY7kSA!2e0
I know this thread started as a split from another thread, but now it seems that the two "relinquishing" threads are covering the same subject matter and should probably be merged.
Good idea, mrsman. Topics merged with new thread title. --roadfro
Quote from: flowmotion on April 23, 2015, 06:19:16 PM
I don't see the point in inventing a new style of shield (or adding a R) for this sort of thing, as the motorist doesn't really care who is maintaining the route. Either use the county pentagon marker, or just leave the green spades up.
This is something I have always agreed with. A motorist isn't going to care about a legal definition, or who maintains what section of what highway. All they want to know is that the route exists and can be easily followed. Thus, regardless of if Caltrans maintains a highway or not, regardless of if a section is relinquished or not, the highway should be signed. IMO, navigation is the most important purpose of a highway shield, not letting you know that it's state maintained.
Quote from: Quillz on May 28, 2015, 12:59:01 PM
This is something I have always agreed with. A motorist isn't going to care about a legal definition, or who maintains what section of what highway. All they want to know is that the route exists and can be easily followed. Thus, regardless of if Caltrans maintains a highway or not, regardless of if a section is relinquished or not, the highway should be signed. IMO, navigation is the most important purpose of a highway shield, not letting you know that it's state maintained.
But from a legal liability perspective, there's got to be something obvious to inform who is maintaining the roadway, i.e., the state or a local jurisdiction. The reason is that if someone is injured on a roadway due to negligence (bad sightlines, improperly maintained roadway, lack of proper safety features, hidden dangerous condition), they have to have adequate notice of who has liability for the property condition so they can sue the proper party.
In California you have a very limited window to sue a government agency, and you have to make a claim to the proper agency before you sue. That claim must also be filed within a relatively short period of time after the injury occurred. For personal injury claims that time limit usually six months. And the government agency can delay as much as it wants in responding to the initial claim; there's no penalty for it sitting on a claim and not responding.
So imagine a scenario where someone gets injured on a roadway that has a state shield. They go out and find an attorney, the attorney makes the requisite pre-lawsuit claim to the state because he reasonably thinks the roadway is maintained by Caltrans. The state takes its time responding and eventually tells the attorney, "Claim denied: this isn't our roadway. Despite the state highway shield, it's maintained by the county or the city." The attorney then finds out who the actual local agency with jurisdiction is, and files a claim more than six months after the injury with that agency.
Under the law, even though the attorney might have been reasonable in believing the roadway was maintained by the state because of the state shield, the lawsuit would still be barred because the claim was filed outside the six-month period.
Good points, ones I didn't consider.
Someone else here suggesting using different colored shields. Maybe something like that could work.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on June 02, 2015, 05:15:11 PM
Quote from: Quillz on May 28, 2015, 12:59:01 PM
This is something I have always agreed with. A motorist isn't going to care about a legal definition, or who maintains what section of what highway. All they want to know is that the route exists and can be easily followed. Thus, regardless of if Caltrans maintains a highway or not, regardless of if a section is relinquished or not, the highway should be signed. IMO, navigation is the most important purpose of a highway shield, not letting you know that it's state maintained.
But from a legal liability perspective, there's got to be something obvious to inform who is maintaining the roadway, i.e., the state or a local jurisdiction. The reason is that if someone is injured on a roadway due to negligence (bad sightlines, improperly maintained roadway, lack of proper safety features, hidden dangerous condition), they have to have adequate notice of who has liability for the property condition so they can sue the proper party.
In California you have a very limited window to sue a government agency, and you have to make a claim to the proper agency before you sue. That claim must also be filed within a relatively short period of time after the injury occurred. For personal injury claims that time limit usually six months. And the government agency can delay as much as it wants in responding to the initial claim; there's no penalty for it sitting on a claim and not responding.
So imagine a scenario where someone gets injured on a roadway that has a state shield. They go out and find an attorney, the attorney makes the requisite pre-lawsuit claim to the state because he reasonably thinks the roadway is maintained by Caltrans. The state takes its time responding and eventually tells the attorney, "Claim denied: this isn't our roadway. Despite the state highway shield, it's maintained by the county or the city." The attorney then finds out who the actual local agency with jurisdiction is, and files a claim more than six months after the injury with that agency.
Under the law, even though the attorney might have been reasonable in believing the roadway was maintained by the state because of the state shield, the lawsuit would still be barred because the claim was filed outside the six-month period.
I agree with this in principle, but the reality is that there are many stretches of state-maintained roadway that are inconsistently signed, and many stretches of relinquished roadway that are still signed, years after the fact, including new signs having been posted after the relinquishment (CA-91 signs along Artesia Boulevard, for example). So your example could work in reverse - someone has a negligence claim on Mission Boulevard at Warm Springs in Fremont - that's CA-262, but there's no signage at all on that route, let alone "obvious" signage, so the lawyer reasonably assumes the road's maintained by the City of Fremont.
Also, segments of routes that get relinquished are supposed to have posted "signs directing motorists to the continuation" of the route. I assume this means that "TO" signs are posted above the shields, and arrows below, but I have yet to see that done in the field - either the signs are left as is, or they're removed completely.
I'm nowhere near being a lawyer, but it seems to me a lawyer would do their due diligence in researching who owns the road - county, state or city - regardless of what may or may not be posted in the field - before filing a claim.
In recent relinquishment related news, the city of Coronado wants to take over CA 282: http://www.ecoronado.com/profiles/blogs/state-route-282-relinquishment-under-consideration-210320152255 , and the Santa Clara Valley counties are still trying to figure out if they really want to take over CA 82 from I-880 to CA 84: http://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=2013&MediaPosition=&ID=4798&CssClass= .
In my opinionated opinion, anything implying "Highway Shields are really an Inventory System" is a flawed premise. Marked routes should only exist to assist the traveler to a destination, nothing more, nothing less. Too many highway bureaucrats forget the signs are posted there for the public, not their shoddy databases.
If there is a requirement for ownership indicator, just put a small marker at the bottom of the pole. No need for some fabulous new sign design.
Quote from: flowmotion on June 03, 2015, 12:07:53 AM
In my opinionated opinion, anything implying "Highway Shields are really an Inventory System" is a flawed premise. Marked routes should only exist to assist the traveler to a destination, nothing more, nothing less. Too many highway bureaucrats forget the signs are posted there for the public, not their shoddy databases.
If there is a requirement for ownership indicator, just put a small marker at the bottom of the pole. No need for some fabulous new sign design.
Reminds me of the original bear shields, which had the Auto Club logo on them.
Quote from: flowmotion on June 03, 2015, 12:07:53 AM
In my opinionated opinion, anything implying "Highway Shields are really an Inventory System" is a flawed premise. Marked routes should only exist to assist the traveler to a destination, nothing more, nothing less. Too many highway bureaucrats forget the signs are posted there for the public, not their shoddy databases.
Tell this to the states that assign overlapping state route numbers to Interstate and US Routes, then feel compelled to post the redundant state route shields at junction assemblies, etc.
Quote from: flowmotion on June 03, 2015, 12:07:53 AM
In my opinionated opinion, anything implying "Highway Shields are really an Inventory System" is a flawed premise. Marked routes should only exist to assist the traveler to a destination, nothing more, nothing less. Too many highway bureaucrats forget the signs are posted there for the public, not their shoddy databases.
If there is a requirement for ownership indicator, just put a small marker at the bottom of the pole. No need for some fabulous new sign design.
I agree with this approach, and if Caltrans or local agencies could consistently sign the discontinuities, they should do so. I've seen lots of states that have these kind of signs, e.g., "This road maintained by the State," or "This road locally maintained."
Of course, I regularly commute through Long Beach, where Caltrans can't figure out how or if it wants to still sign the relinquished portions of SR-19. And city governments can be even worse in their inconsistencies. So I'm skeptical that such a system could be implemented in a less-flawed manner in this state than the current highly-flawed signing system they use now.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist link=topic=6165.msg2068817#msg2068817
Of course, I regularly commute through Long Beach, where Caltrans can't figure out how or if it wants to still sign the relinquished portions of SR-19. And city governments can be even worse in their inconsistencies. So I'm skeptical that such a system could be implemented in a less-flawed manner in this state than the current highly-flawed signing system they use now.
That gets back to the original post. CA-19 is now a mostly pointless feature of the state highway system, and the only reason it's signed at all is "Inventory Control". If I were Caltrans Dictator, I would tear down all the 19 signs and use "Begin/End State Maintenance" on the non-relinquished portions, if it is bureaucratically required.
Part of the reason this thread has lasted as long as it has is because people are going around in circles on "Should we sign routes nobody cares about?". Which in my opinon is "NO!".
Quote from: flowmotion on June 05, 2015, 10:43:50 PM
Part of the reason this thread has lasted as long as it has is because people are going around in circles on "Should we sign routes nobody cares about?". Which in my opinon is "NO!".
And yet CA 14U is VERY well signed!
Between Lake Elsinore, Hemet, and Riverside County, a big piece of CA 74 is not far away from leaving the SHS. Notably this stretch:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F92WQrdO.png&hash=f61e67aedddaa3312bf9f3d285b5953953d88d33)
The portion in Perris is already off the system.
Quote from: emory on June 06, 2015, 01:26:46 AM
Between Lake Elsinore, Hemet, and Riverside County, a big piece of CA 74 is not far away from leaving the SHS. Notably this stretch:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F92WQrdO.png&hash=f61e67aedddaa3312bf9f3d285b5953953d88d33)
The portion in Perris is already off the system.
Much of SR 79 along Winchester Road (north of Hemet) is already off the state highway system. How did you find out all of SR 74 from Lake Elsinore east to Canyon Lake and Hemet is to be removed as well? Is there any news on moving SR 79 onto all of Sanderson Avenue? Or is SR 79 also going to be removed from the state highway system in Hemet and San Jacinto?
Sorry. I haven't been to this forum in a while.
Riverside County has arguing about their segment of Route 74 for a while but it looks like they're finally getting closer to controlling it as per this article: http://myvalleynews.com/regional-news/bill-to-give-county-control-of-state-highway-clears-committee/ . The Lake Elsinore and Hemet sections are noted in the SHC.
Also, looks like the portion of Route 1 from Santa Monica to the 105 as well as all of Route 187 are going up for relinquishment. Both are in the City of Los Angeles. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/asm/ab_0801-0850/ab_810_bill_20150420_amended_asm_v98.html
Quote(h) Upon a determination by the commission that it is in the best
interest of the state to do so, the commission may, upon terms and
conditions approved by it, relinquish to the City of Los Angeles the
portion of Route 1 within the city between the southern city limit of
the City of Santa Monica (approximately postmile 33.3) and Route 105
(approximately postmile 25.9), if the department and the City of Los
Angeles enter into an agreement providing for that relinquishment.
The following conditions shall apply upon relinquishment:
(1) The relinquishment shall become effective on the date
following the county recorder's recordation of the relinquishment
resolution containing the commission's approval of the terms and
conditions of the relinquishment.
(2) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, the
relinquished portion of Route 1 shall cease to be a state highway.
(3) The portion of Route 1 relinquished under this subdivision
shall be ineligible for future adoption under Section 81.
(4) The City of Los Angeles shall ensure the continuity of traffic
flow on the relinquished portion of Route 1, including any traffic
signal progression, to the extent applicable.
(5) For the portion of Route 1 relinquished under this
subdivision, the City of Los Angeles shall install and maintain
within its jurisdiction, signs directing motorists to the
continuation of Route 1 to the extent deemed necessary by the
department.
Quote(b) Upon a determination by the commission that it is in the best
interest of the state to do so, the commission may, upon terms and
conditions approved by it, relinquish to the City of Los Angeles
Route 187 within the city between the route's western terminus at
Lincoln Boulevard (approximately postmile 3.5) and its eastern
terminus at Cadillac Avenue near Route 10 (approximately postmile
8.9), if the department and the city enter into an agreement
providing for that relinquishment. The following conditions shall
apply upon relinquishment:
(1) The relinquishment shall become effective on the date
following the county recorder's recordation of the relinquishment
resolution containing the commission's approval of the terms and
conditions of the relinquishment.
(2) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, Route
187 shall cease to be a state highway.
(3) Route 187, as relinquished under this subdivision, shall be
ineligible for future adoption under Section 81.
Quote from: mrsman on May 03, 2015, 08:26:16 AM
Quote from: Atomica on May 02, 2015, 07:23:06 AM
Or could it be a coloured square or box sign, with a NON-DIECUT white spade, with a colour-coordinated number, perhaps green, blue, or even black box with white spade and matching number? Even my avatar poses that possibility...
No, one nice thing about CA signage is that they go through the effort of cutting out the signs on US and miner spade shields. Let's not go backwards. I think that a simple "county maintained" banner would be better. Besides, at that point, there would be no need to remove the existing miner spade shields.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.568759,-121.102929,3a,75y,144.17h,54.14t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s_hpg_tSXoDn_8CgDdY7kSA!2e0
Sort of like when Florida offloaded all the state secondary routes to Counties in 1977. A "C" was slapped over the "S" and a "COUNTY" sticker on the bottom.
Very few are left now, mostly rural areas. Most are now pentagons
Very interesting to read about the relinquishments along CA 74 and CA 79. I believe it is a first, since all previous relinquishments have occurred within cities. This one is along rural roads between cities such as Perris and Hemet.
Quote from: mrsman on July 19, 2015, 09:18:09 AM
Very interesting to read about the relinquishments along CA 74 and CA 79. I believe it is a first, since all previous relinquishments have occurred within cities. This one is along rural roads between cities such as Perris and Hemet.
Relinquishing to counties is still common if the segment of the state highway is in an unincorporated portion of said county. Another current example is Caltrans wants to relinquish all of Route 86 south of Fredricks Road near Route 78. The portions that aren't going to the cities of Brawley, Imperial and El Centro are going to Imperial County.
Quote from: emory on July 19, 2015, 06:41:13 PM
Quote from: mrsman on July 19, 2015, 09:18:09 AM
Very interesting to read about the relinquishments along CA 74 and CA 79. I believe it is a first, since all previous relinquishments have occurred within cities. This one is along rural roads between cities such as Perris and Hemet.
Relinquishing to counties is still common if the segment of the state highway is in an unincorporated portion of said county. Another current example is Caltrans wants to relinquish all of Route 86 south of Fredricks Road near Route 78. The portions that aren't going to the cities of Brawley, Imperial and El Centro are going to Imperial County.
If they do that, the CA-86 designation should replace 111 south of Brawley. Otherwise, the most direct and most improved route from I-8 to Indio has three designations.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on July 22, 2015, 12:00:25 PM
Quote from: emory on July 19, 2015, 06:41:13 PM
Quote from: mrsman on July 19, 2015, 09:18:09 AM
Very interesting to read about the relinquishments along CA 74 and CA 79. I believe it is a first, since all previous relinquishments have occurred within cities. This one is along rural roads between cities such as Perris and Hemet.
Relinquishing to counties is still common if the segment of the state highway is in an unincorporated portion of said county. Another current example is Caltrans wants to relinquish all of Route 86 south of Fredricks Road near Route 78. The portions that aren't going to the cities of Brawley, Imperial and El Centro are going to Imperial County.
If they do that, the CA-86 designation should replace 111 south of Brawley. Otherwise, the most direct and most improved route from I-8 to Indio has three designations.
So you're suggesting Route 86 jumps onto the expressway with Route 78, and Route 111 terminates at the expressway? It would certainly be more direct between Indio and the border.
Quote from: emory on July 23, 2015, 07:46:53 PM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on July 22, 2015, 12:00:25 PM
Quote from: emory on July 19, 2015, 06:41:13 PM
Quote from: mrsman on July 19, 2015, 09:18:09 AM
Very interesting to read about the relinquishments along CA 74 and CA 79. I believe it is a first, since all previous relinquishments have occurred within cities. This one is along rural roads between cities such as Perris and Hemet.
Relinquishing to counties is still common if the segment of the state highway is in an unincorporated portion of said county. Another current example is Caltrans wants to relinquish all of Route 86 south of Fredricks Road near Route 78. The portions that aren't going to the cities of Brawley, Imperial and El Centro are going to Imperial County.
If they do that, the CA-86 designation should replace 111 south of Brawley. Otherwise, the most direct and most improved route from I-8 to Indio has three designations.
So you're suggesting Route 86 jumps onto the expressway with Route 78, and Route 111 terminates at the expressway? It would certainly be more direct between Indio and the border.
I started a thread with a very similar idea in Fictional Highways.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11063.0
Quote from: mrsman on July 24, 2015, 02:39:30 PM
I started a thread with a very similar idea in Fictional Highways.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11063.0
It's an old post, but part of it has come true since! Route 111 between its junction with CA 86 and the Palm Springs city limit has been turned over to local maintenance. I imagine the remainder between Palm Springs and I-10 will go eventually as well.
Quote from: emory on July 29, 2015, 04:36:48 PM
Quote from: mrsman on July 24, 2015, 02:39:30 PM
I started a thread with a very similar idea in Fictional Highways.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11063.0
It's an old post, but part of it has come true since! Route 111 between its junction with CA 86 and the Palm Springs city limit has been turned over to local maintenance. I imagine the remainder between Palm Springs and I-10 will go eventually as well.
That's interesting. But it's odd because most of this stretch does not have a name and is only known as Highway 111.
Quote from: emory on July 29, 2015, 04:36:48 PM
It's an old post, but part of it has come true since! Route 111 between its junction with CA 86 and the Palm Springs city limit has been turned over to local maintenance. I imagine the remainder between Palm Springs and I-10 will go eventually as well.
Maybe it's time to multiplex 111 and 86 at both ends of the Salton Sea.
Quote from: mrsman on July 31, 2015, 08:43:33 AM
Quote from: emory on July 29, 2015, 04:36:48 PM
Quote from: mrsman on July 24, 2015, 02:39:30 PM
I started a thread with a very similar idea in Fictional Highways.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11063.0
It's an old post, but part of it has come true since! Route 111 between its junction with CA 86 and the Palm Springs city limit has been turned over to local maintenance. I imagine the remainder between Palm Springs and I-10 will go eventually as well.
That's interesting. But it's odd because most of this stretch does not have a name and is only known as Highway 111.
San Diego County Route S21 is still partially named "Highway 101" and carries modified US 101 shields.
More bills have gone through the senate permitting more relinquishments.
-CA 19 (Route 164) to the city of South El Monte https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB461
-CA 19 (Route 164) to Los Angeles County within the city of Pico Rivera http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0451-0500/sb_461_cfa_20150416_160532_sen_comm.html
-CA 16 to Sacramento County via a combination of eastbound, westbound, and all lanes depending on the mileposts. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB652
-CA 203 to the city of Tehachapi and to Kern County, which comprise the entire route. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB633
Quote from: emory on August 08, 2015, 12:21:24 AM
-CA 203 to the city of Tehachapi and to Kern County, which comprise the entire route. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB633
I think you mean CA 202, but yes, I'd heard something about a proposal to decommission that route. That would leave a portion of 202 as a part of Business CA 58 and the remainder left with local naming. Since Kern County does not have any signed pentagon routes (as far as I know), I doubt we'll see CR J202 or anything like that to replace it. There are no provisions in the bill as stated that would require either Tehachapi or Kern County to maintain signage for CA 202.
Quote from: emory on August 08, 2015, 12:21:24 AM
-CA 19 (Route 164) to the city of South El Monte https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB461
-CA 19 (Route 164) to Los Angeles County within the city of Pico Rivera http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0451-0500/sb_461_cfa_20150416_160532_sen_comm.html
In my opinion, both CA 19 and CA 164 both need to go away in their entirety. The complexity of following this route from jurisdiction to jurisdiction has become increasingly difficult to follow! CA 164 would have been much more useful had the "direct connection" between I-605 and SR 19 was built years ago. I'm guessing that proposal is all but dead, so now I'm thinking the rest of it ought to be left to its local naming (Lakewood Blvd and Rosemead Boulevard).
It is interesting to read the bill analysis):
Quote1. Purpose. According to the author, the goal of this bill is to relinquish a 2.6-mile segment of SR 164, also known as Rosemead Boulevard, to the County of Los Angeles for the purpose of realizing a community-driven vision for a Complete Streets corridor project. This corridor project fully accommodates safe and convenient travel for all users of the road, especially vulnerable roadway users such as people with disabilities, seniors, youth, pedestrians and cyclists. This project also aims to compliment the surrounding Whittier Narrows Recreational Area - the largest park in the region - by enhancing recreation opportunities and access to the park.
2. Relinquishments. Each session, the Legislature passes and the governor signs numerous bills authorizing CTC to relinquish segments of the state highway system to local jurisdictions. Relinquishment transactions are generally preceded by a negotiation of terms and conditions between the local jurisdiction and Caltrans. Once an agreement has been established, CTC typically approves the relinquishment and verifies its approval via a resolution. That is the case with this bill; Caltrans has negotiated an agreement with Los Angeles County for this segment of SR 164, and this bill authorizes CTC to relinquish the road to the county.
Of interest, the administration proposed budget trailer bill language this year intending to streamline the state's relinquishment process. According to the governor's budget summary, a number of routes are still part of the state highway system that no longer serve an interregional purpose, and instead serve primarily regional or local purposes. The proposed trailer bill language broadens and streamlines the state process for relinquishing these portions of the statewide system that primarily serve regional or local purposes. This could be a win-win proposal, with both locals and the state benefiting. On one hand, shifting ownership of these segments, many of which run through a downtown area, will increase local flexibility to add stoplights and make better use of valuable real estate to support transit-oriented development. Meanwhile, additional relinquishments reduce the state's long-term costs for ongoing maintenance and repair of the state system. There is merit in a proposal streamlining the relinquishment process; however, it seems that such a proposal should be considered through the policy bill process and not as an add-on to the state's annual budget.
3. SR 164 history. The Legislature originally designated SR 164 a state highway in 1963 as a roughly 10-mile segment of road from Route 605 near Pico Rivera to Route 210 near Pasadena. At some point this state highway became known as Rosemead Boulevard, and the Legislature has relinquished portions of it to local jurisdictions through a number of bills. If this bill were to become law and the CTC relinquished the segment of SR 164 described in this bill, the remaining segments of the highway would amount to a 0.1-mile stub between SR 210 and Foothill Boulevard and a roughly two-mile segment between Temple City and South El Monte. This seems to be an excellent example of the need for a streamlined relinquishment system, as it is unclear why these small highway segments are of state importance and therefore the state's responsibility to operate and maintain.
Key points:
- A number of routes are still part of the state highway system that no longer serve an interregional purpose, and instead serve primarily regional or local purposes. The proposed trailer bill language broadens and streamlines the state process for relinquishing these portions of the statewide system that primarily serve regional or local purposes.
- The remaining segments of SR 164 (not including the SR 19 portion) highway would amount to a 0.1-mile stub between SR 210 and Foothill Boulevard (does anyone know why SR 164 extends north of SR 210 at all? Is this going back to when Foothill was US 66?) and a roughly two-mile segment between Temple City and South El Monte.
Quote from: andy3175 on August 09, 2015, 11:43:12 PM
Quote from: emory on August 08, 2015, 12:21:24 AM
-CA 203 to the city of Tehachapi and to Kern County, which comprise the entire route. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB633
I think you mean CA 202, but yes, I'd heard something about a proposal to decommission that route. That would leave a portion of 202 as a part of Business CA 58 and the remainder left with local naming. Since Kern County does not have any signed pentagon routes (as far as I know), I doubt we'll see CR J202 or anything like that to replace it. There are no provisions in the bill as stated that would require either Tehachapi or Kern County to maintain signage for CA 202.
Yeah 202. Thanks for correcting me there.
Quote from: andy3175 on August 09, 2015, 11:52:32 PM
Quote from: emory on August 08, 2015, 12:21:24 AM
-CA 19 (Route 164) to the city of South El Monte https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB461
-CA 19 (Route 164) to Los Angeles County within the city of Pico Rivera http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0451-0500/sb_461_cfa_20150416_160532_sen_comm.html
In my opinion, both CA 19 and CA 164 both need to go away in their entirety. The complexity of following this route from jurisdiction to jurisdiction has become increasingly difficult to follow! CA 164 would have been much more useful had the "direct connection" between I-605 and SR 19 was built years ago. I'm guessing that proposal is all but dead, so now I'm thinking the rest of it ought to be left to its local naming (Lakewood Blvd and Rosemead Boulevard).
Under Route 19 in the SHC, it shows that the route is permitted relinquishment to Bellflower and Downey, which are the last two cities where it exists. At this point, is it simply a matter of how quickly the city can take over the road from Caltrans?
Here's a rather lengthy assembly bill granting permission to relinquish CA 275 (aka the Tower Bridge), with conditions.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB95&search_keywords=relinquishment
Quote73.1. The commission may relinquish State Route 275, the Tower Bridge, to one or more cities in which it is located, upon agreement of the city or cities to accept it and pursuant to those terms the commission finds to be in the best interest of the state. A relinquishment under this section shall become effective upon the first day of the next calendar or fiscal year, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of the commission's approval of the terms.
Quote73.2. (a) State Route 275, the Tower Bridge, shall be deemed to be in a state of good repair for purposes of relinquishment pursuant to Section 73.1, provided that the bridge is not structurally deficient and is rated as satisfactory pursuant to the National Bridge Index.
(b) This section shall become inoperative on July 1, 2016, and, as of January 1, 2017, is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that becomes operative on or before January 1, 2017, deletes or extends the dates on which it becomes inoperative and is repealed.
Quote from: emory on September 18, 2015, 03:08:12 AM
Here's a rather lengthy assembly bill granting permission to relinquish CA 275 (aka the Tower Bridge), with conditions.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB95&search_keywords=relinquishment
Quote73.1. The commission may relinquish State Route 275, the Tower Bridge, to one or more cities in which it is located, upon agreement of the city or cities to accept it and pursuant to those terms the commission finds to be in the best interest of the state. A relinquishment under this section shall become effective upon the first day of the next calendar or fiscal year, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of the commission's approval of the terms.
Quote73.2. (a) State Route 275, the Tower Bridge, shall be deemed to be in a state of good repair for purposes of relinquishment pursuant to Section 73.1, provided that the bridge is not structurally deficient and is rated as satisfactory pursuant to the National Bridge Index.
(b) This section shall become inoperative on July 1, 2016, and, as of January 1, 2017, is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that becomes operative on or before January 1, 2017, deletes or extends the dates on which it becomes inoperative and is repealed.
Yes, there's more to this story: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/transportation/back-seat-driver/article24926050.html
QuoteState to give Tower Bridge away?
June 18, 2015
Buried in the state budget this week is this item: The state appears willing to pay the cities of Sacramento and West Sacramento a total of up to $15 million to take the Tower Bridge off its hands.
Tower Bridge over the Sacramento River is technically a highway, or at least the road on the bridge is. It's State Route 275, the shortest in California. The bridge once served as the main entrance into the capital city. The state a decade ago relinquished the highway on both sides of the bridge to each city.
Caltrans now wants to relinquish the 80-year-old structure as well. The two cities have been interested, but reluctant because of the likely costs involved.
They'd have to shoulder annual operations and maintenance costs, including, for a while, the cost of a bridge tender in a control room in the rafters who lifts the road deck to allow tall ships through. The bridge's "bumpers," which protect it from errant boats and river debris, also may need rebuilding.
"It's not a free puppy," Jerry Way, Sacramento public works director, said last year when the discussions surfaced. "We don't want to take on a substantial financial burden for either city."
Caltrans has declined comment on its intentions. Sacramento officials say the state plans to do an assessment of the bridge's condition. Once that is done, the state and locals might talk seriously about terms for relinquishment.
The budget bill does not specify how the cities could spend any state funds. That's notable. The two cities have asked the state to chip in $10 million for another local project, a proposed $175 million streetcar line that would cross the Tower Bridge. It is possible that request can be wrapped into the bridge relinquishment negotiations.
The streetcar project is stalled at the moment. Downtown Sacramento voters earlier this month vetoed a proposed taxing district that would have helped finance the project. But city officials say they haven't given up on the streetcar concept — they just need to find other revenue. Ten million dollars from the state would be a start.
The cities don't actually need to own the bridge to build the streetcar over it. So, why would they consider taking the bridge off the state's hands? The answer may simply be: If you can grab a great piece of real estate without breaking the bank, do it. Sacramento's Way says, for one, "it's beautiful and iconic."
Owning the bridge would give the two cities, especially West Sacramento, more flexibility as they develop the Sacramento River waterfronts. The cities increasingly have been using the bridge, with state OK, as a public event space for things like professional bike races and an annual Farm to Fork dinner.
On one hand, taking the keys will lock the cities into annual expenses, forever. But they won't have to ask the state anymore, "Uh, can we borrow the bridge?"
Tony Bizjak: (916) 321-1059, tbizjak@sacbee.com, @TonyBizjak
Related to the previous post, but a slightly off-topic question:
If a bridge were built over a river between two counties, which county would control the bridge?
You see, for bridges that cross state lines, sometimes the state line is defined as being on the waterline and sometimes it's defined as being in the middle of the river. So for the bridges crossing the Hudson River, you have the Port Authority in charge of the crossing. Port Authority is a bi-state compact under federal law between NY and NJ.
So if a bridge between Yolo and Sacramento counties were built, and it is not a state highway, which county would be in charge? Who is now in charge of the I Street Bridge? Would they need to set up a bi-county corporation that is akin to the Port Authority to mainitain the Tower Bridge?
^^ Bridges that cross jurisdictions usually and a contractional agreement where one of the agencies take ownership/maintenance of the bridge and costs are split between the 2 jurisdictions. If there are multiple bridges in such situations between the 2 jurisdictions, they usually split ownership of them (such if there are 4 bridges like that, each would own 2 of them).
This is the way it is generally done with bridges crossing the Mississippi River along state lines.
Reminds me of the bridges in NYSDOT Region's 6 that are shared between NYSDOT and the municipalities in which the bridges are. Some of the splits are ridiculous (80 state / 20 town or other way around). Gives everyone more headaches than they're worth.
Quote from: Big John on September 19, 2015, 11:36:04 PM
^^ Bridges that cross jurisdictions usually and a contractional agreement where one of the agencies take ownership/maintenance of the bridge and costs are split between the 2 jurisdictions. If there are multiple bridges in such situations between the 2 jurisdictions, they usually split ownership of them (such if there are 4 bridges like that, each would own 2 of them).
This is the way it is generally done with bridges crossing the Mississippi River along state lines.
Usually, one of the parties to the agreement will assume responsibility for maintenance of the structure, or the parties will agree to form a joint exercise of powers authority that will in turn have that responsibility. Since most counties would be loathe to create a whole new structure, one of the parties would likely assume maintenance responsibility for the structure. In the case of Tower Bridge, I can see either city of Sacramento or city of West Sacramento having this role, so I guess we'll see where the negotiations go with respect to providing bridge and roadway maintenance.
Quote from: andy3175 on September 21, 2015, 01:13:51 AM
Quote from: Big John on September 19, 2015, 11:36:04 PM
^^ Bridges that cross jurisdictions usually and a contractional agreement where one of the agencies take ownership/maintenance of the bridge and costs are split between the 2 jurisdictions. If there are multiple bridges in such situations between the 2 jurisdictions, they usually split ownership of them (such if there are 4 bridges like that, each would own 2 of them).
This is the way it is generally done with bridges crossing the Mississippi River along state lines.
Usually, one of the parties to the agreement will assume responsibility for maintenance of the structure, or the parties will agree to form a joint exercise of powers authority that will in turn have that responsibility. Since most counties would be loathe to create a whole new structure, one of the parties would likely assume maintenance responsibility for the structure. In the case of Tower Bridge, I can see either city of Sacramento or city of West Sacramento having this role, so I guess we'll see where the negotiations go with respect to providing bridge and roadway maintenance.
We'll indeed see how the Tower Bridge saga plays out. But IMO it doesn't make any sense for the cities to want the headache of maintaining this bridge. I can understand control over Capitol Avenue / Capitol Mall so that the cities won't need state approval to implement bike lanes or change the speed limit, but the bridge itself is a mini-freeway that is best left in state hands.
In SoCal there is a segment of Sierra Highway that is designated SR 14U (unrelinquished). Sierra Highway was the old routing of US 6 / SR 14 until the Antelope Valley Freeway was opened. Sierra Highway is largely a city street in the control of the nearby cities and/or LA County, but one section is such a maintenance headache that Caltrans still maintains the section, despite the freeway.
Quote from: mrsman on September 25, 2015, 03:06:22 PM
Quote from: andy3175 on September 21, 2015, 01:13:51 AM
Quote from: Big John on September 19, 2015, 11:36:04 PM
^^ Bridges that cross jurisdictions usually and a contractional agreement where one of the agencies take ownership/maintenance of the bridge and costs are split between the 2 jurisdictions. If there are multiple bridges in such situations between the 2 jurisdictions, they usually split ownership of them (such if there are 4 bridges like that, each would own 2 of them).
This is the way it is generally done with bridges crossing the Mississippi River along state lines.
Usually, one of the parties to the agreement will assume responsibility for maintenance of the structure, or the parties will agree to form a joint exercise of powers authority that will in turn have that responsibility. Since most counties would be loathe to create a whole new structure, one of the parties would likely assume maintenance responsibility for the structure. In the case of Tower Bridge, I can see either city of Sacramento or city of West Sacramento having this role, so I guess we'll see where the negotiations go with respect to providing bridge and roadway maintenance.
We'll indeed see how the Tower Bridge saga plays out. But IMO it doesn't make any sense for the cities to want the headache of maintaining this bridge. I can understand control over Capitol Avenue / Capitol Mall so that the cities won't need state approval to implement bike lanes or change the speed limit, but the bridge itself is a mini-freeway that is best left in state hands.
Not really - the mini-freeway segment that remains is now just Jefferson Boulevard only, with the rest of the former US 40/99W freeway having been converted to city street over the last 5-6 years. The former West Capitol Avenue exit was removed ca. 2011 and part of West Capitol in fact has since been closed in order to direct traffic onto the former freeway (now the Tower Bridge Gateway surface route).
Quote from: mrsman on September 25, 2015, 03:06:22 PM
Quote from: andy3175 on September 21, 2015, 01:13:51 AM
Quote from: Big John on September 19, 2015, 11:36:04 PM
^^ Bridges that cross jurisdictions usually and a contractional agreement where one of the agencies take ownership/maintenance of the bridge and costs are split between the 2 jurisdictions. If there are multiple bridges in such situations between the 2 jurisdictions, they usually split ownership of them (such if there are 4 bridges like that, each would own 2 of them).
This is the way it is generally done with bridges crossing the Mississippi River along state lines.
Usually, one of the parties to the agreement will assume responsibility for maintenance of the structure, or the parties will agree to form a joint exercise of powers authority that will in turn have that responsibility. Since most counties would be loathe to create a whole new structure, one of the parties would likely assume maintenance responsibility for the structure. In the case of Tower Bridge, I can see either city of Sacramento or city of West Sacramento having this role, so I guess we'll see where the negotiations go with respect to providing bridge and roadway maintenance.
We'll indeed see how the Tower Bridge saga plays out. But IMO it doesn't make any sense for the cities to want the headache of maintaining this bridge. I can understand control over Capitol Avenue / Capitol Mall so that the cities won't need state approval to implement bike lanes or change the speed limit, but the bridge itself is a mini-freeway that is best left in state hands.
In SoCal there is a segment of Sierra Highway that is designated SR 14U (unrelinquished). Sierra Highway was the old routing of US 6 / SR 14 until the Antelope Valley Freeway was opened. Sierra Highway is largely a city street in the control of the nearby cities and/or LA County, but one section is such a maintenance headache that Caltrans still maintains the section, despite the freeway.
That section of Sierra Highway is still a State highway because the County, not the City of Santa Clarita in this case, refuses to take it. It passes through a section of Plio-Pleistocene Saugus Formation which tends to crumble during heavy rains. That brings large amounts of rock and other debris onto the roadway along with some drainage issues. It really isn't any worse than many other sections of roadway under Los Angeles County control, but this one seems special for some reason. So, we now have a signed State 14U which runs from near Rainbow Glen Dr south to near San Fernando Road/Newhall Ave.
Quote from: sdmichael on September 26, 2015, 11:37:39 AM
Quote from: mrsman on September 25, 2015, 03:06:22 PM
Quote from: andy3175 on September 21, 2015, 01:13:51 AM
Quote from: Big John on September 19, 2015, 11:36:04 PM
^^ Bridges that cross jurisdictions usually and a contractional agreement where one of the agencies take ownership/maintenance of the bridge and costs are split between the 2 jurisdictions. If there are multiple bridges in such situations between the 2 jurisdictions, they usually split ownership of them (such if there are 4 bridges like that, each would own 2 of them).
This is the way it is generally done with bridges crossing the Mississippi River along state lines.
Usually, one of the parties to the agreement will assume responsibility for maintenance of the structure, or the parties will agree to form a joint exercise of powers authority that will in turn have that responsibility. Since most counties would be loathe to create a whole new structure, one of the parties would likely assume maintenance responsibility for the structure. In the case of Tower Bridge, I can see either city of Sacramento or city of West Sacramento having this role, so I guess we'll see where the negotiations go with respect to providing bridge and roadway maintenance.
We'll indeed see how the Tower Bridge saga plays out. But IMO it doesn't make any sense for the cities to want the headache of maintaining this bridge. I can understand control over Capitol Avenue / Capitol Mall so that the cities won't need state approval to implement bike lanes or change the speed limit, but the bridge itself is a mini-freeway that is best left in state hands.
In SoCal there is a segment of Sierra Highway that is designated SR 14U (unrelinquished). Sierra Highway was the old routing of US 6 / SR 14 until the Antelope Valley Freeway was opened. Sierra Highway is largely a city street in the control of the nearby cities and/or LA County, but one section is such a maintenance headache that Caltrans still maintains the section, despite the freeway.
That section of Sierra Highway is still a State highway because the County, not the City of Santa Clarita in this case, refuses to take it. It passes through a section of Plio-Pleistocene Saugus Formation which tends to crumble during heavy rains. That brings large amounts of rock and other debris onto the roadway along with some drainage issues. It really isn't any worse than many other sections of roadway under Los Angeles County control, but this one seems special for some reason. So, we now have a signed State 14U which runs from near Rainbow Glen Dr south to near San Fernando Road/Newhall Ave.
And it's one of the most well signed state roads I've seen. Man.
With all the potential relinquishments means that some numbers will be freed up for re-use. Wonder if any of them will ever actually be recycled. (Only one I know of at the moment is CA-11).
Quote from: Quillz on November 15, 2015, 11:12:52 PM
With all the potential relinquishments means that some numbers will be freed up for re-use. Wonder if any of them will ever actually be recycled. (Only one I know of at the moment is CA-11).
Route 7 was recycled for a new road south of Holtville (I honestly think this should be an extension of Route 115).
I was gonna start a new thread about why continuation signage on California's non-freeway state routes was so abysmal, but I found this one instead. Seems no one really has any answers. Finding a standalone green spade anywhere that's not a freeway or expressway is like finding a unicorn these days.
It's also comical that 14U appears to be the most well-signed route in the entire state.
Seriously though, does anyone have any idea why the requirement to maintain continuation signage is apparently not enforced?
Quote from: djsekani on July 16, 2016, 07:07:28 PM
I was gonna start a new thread about why continuation signage on California's non-freeway state routes was so abysmal, but I found this one instead. Seems no one really has any answers. Finding a standalone green spade anywhere that's not a freeway or expressway is like finding a unicorn these days.
It's also comical that 14U appears to be the most well-signed route in the entire state.
Seriously though, does anyone have any idea why the requirement to maintain continuation signage is apparently not enforced?
I guess it's just such a low-priority thing to enforce, it's rarely done. I mean, if you're Caltrans, you've got roads to pave, potholes to fix, etc. I guess they figure most people got GPS these days, so there's no need to force some town or city to maintain visible route signage.
Quote from: Quillz on July 16, 2016, 09:16:50 PM
Quote from: djsekani on July 16, 2016, 07:07:28 PM
I was gonna start a new thread about why continuation signage on California's non-freeway state routes was so abysmal, but I found this one instead. Seems no one really has any answers. Finding a standalone green spade anywhere that's not a freeway or expressway is like finding a unicorn these days.
It's also comical that 14U appears to be the most well-signed route in the entire state.
Seriously though, does anyone have any idea why the requirement to maintain continuation signage is apparently not enforced?
I guess it's just such a low-priority thing to enforce, it's rarely done. I mean, if you're Caltrans, you've got roads to pave, potholes to fix, etc. I guess they figure most people got GPS these days, so there's no need to force some town or city to maintain visible route signage.
Why are these relinquishing California state routes with "To" signs happening, is it because of Caltrans districts all over the state of California?
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on July 16, 2016, 09:38:28 PM
Quote from: Quillz on July 16, 2016, 09:16:50 PM
Quote from: djsekani on July 16, 2016, 07:07:28 PM
I was gonna start a new thread about why continuation signage on California's non-freeway state routes was so abysmal, but I found this one instead. Seems no one really has any answers. Finding a standalone green spade anywhere that's not a freeway or expressway is like finding a unicorn these days.
It's also comical that 14U appears to be the most well-signed route in the entire state.
Seriously though, does anyone have any idea why the requirement to maintain continuation signage is apparently not enforced?
I guess it's just such a low-priority thing to enforce, it's rarely done. I mean, if you're Caltrans, you've got roads to pave, potholes to fix, etc. I guess they figure most people got GPS these days, so there's no need to force some town or city to maintain visible route signage.
Why are these relinquishing California state routes with "To" signs happening, is it because of Caltrans districts all over the state of California?
Basically those get thrown up sometimes on relinquished sections of a route that still exists. I know there is some To CA 1 signs along the coast somewhere between Santa Monica and Long Beach. In fairness California isn't the only state that does stuff like that. While not a relinquishment Arizona 238 basically stops at Mobile but the implied route is to Gila Bend. But from AZ 85 in Gila Bend you get a "To AZ 238" since ADOT doesn't maintain the route until Mobile whereas Maricopa County does.
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on July 16, 2016, 09:38:28 PM
Quote from: Quillz on July 16, 2016, 09:16:50 PM
Quote from: djsekani on July 16, 2016, 07:07:28 PM
I was gonna start a new thread about why continuation signage on California's non-freeway state routes was so abysmal, but I found this one instead. Seems no one really has any answers. Finding a standalone green spade anywhere that's not a freeway or expressway is like finding a unicorn these days.
It's also comical that 14U appears to be the most well-signed route in the entire state.
Seriously though, does anyone have any idea why the requirement to maintain continuation signage is apparently not enforced?
I guess it's just such a low-priority thing to enforce, it's rarely done. I mean, if you're Caltrans, you've got roads to pave, potholes to fix, etc. I guess they figure most people got GPS these days, so there's no need to force some town or city to maintain visible route signage.
Why are these relinquishing California state routes with "To" signs happening, is it because of Caltrans districts all over the state of California?
Because many routes officially exist between towns, but not within them. So saying "to" CA-# leads you to the official, Caltrans-maintained sections. Again, it's largely a dumb practice, a route should just be signed as a route regardless of who maintains it, but that's why.
Quote from: Quillz on July 16, 2016, 09:16:50 PM
I guess they figure most people got GPS these days, so there's no need to force some town or city to maintain visible route signage.
Problem with that is that some GPS systems (like Google Maps Navigation) rely on the route numbers for turn-by-turn guidance. It's confusing and annoying to be told to turn onto "California 90" (Imperial Hwy) for example when there's no visible indication that a Route 90 exists.
Quote from: djsekani on July 17, 2016, 03:25:13 AM
Quote from: Quillz on July 16, 2016, 09:16:50 PM
I guess they figure most people got GPS these days, so there's no need to force some town or city to maintain visible route signage.
Problem with that is that some GPS systems (like Google Maps Navigation) rely on the route numbers for turn-by-turn guidance. It's confusing and annoying to be told to turn onto "California 90" (Imperial Hwy) for example when there's no visible indication that a Route 90 exists.
Think that's bad? In Florida almost every GPS will give you the hidden State Road number for every Interstate and U.S. route. For me it was amusing to listen to but I'm sure a lot of people were confused as all hell when their GPS said "turn right onto to State Road 400" when they are trying to get on Interstate 4. :-D