AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Pacific Southwest => Topic started by: ZLoth on September 15, 2016, 08:22:28 AM

Title: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: ZLoth on September 15, 2016, 08:22:28 AM
Here is my gripe.... why does CalTrans have discontinuous routes/split with no obvious near or far future plans to complete them. A few examples:Why doesn't CalTrans give it up, and just give these routes two new numbers?
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Max Rockatansky on September 15, 2016, 08:42:25 AM
Probably the biggest issue is that the numbers are legislatively based meaning that Caltrans really can't do anything on their own to change them.  It seems simple enough to change up but everything becomes a wriggamoral once it ends up in the hands of a legislature to change.  Some other notables that we've discussed a lot on this board recently are; 178, 190, 168, 39, and 146.  At least with 190 there is an implied connection in kind of a round about way with Mountain Routes 90, 50, and 99 along with Sherman Pass Road in addition to J41.  146 serves two sides of the same National Park so basically all that conversation was just conjecture about finding a path between the two.   178 won't ever be finished due to the nasty terrain in the Panamint Range in addition to the expansion of Death Valley in to a National Park.  168 never seems to have had an adopted route across the Sierras between it's two segments.  And 39....well that's just 39.  Since we're talking about gapped routes I'll add in 173 which was the only dirt highway in the state catalog until that segment was abandoned.

I'm surprised there was no mention of 16 being gapped also.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Quillz on September 15, 2016, 01:46:25 PM
190 is the only one that can realistically be connected, via Sherman Pass. 178 might be  possible as some roads do cross into Death Valley. None of the others will be completed.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: oscar on September 15, 2016, 02:11:56 PM
  • California Route 160 - Thanks to the relinquishing of the route through downtown Sacramento, we have a small piece north of Sacramento, and the rest in South Sacramento.[/*]
Is there any continuation signage in the relinquished segment, to link the two segments that are still Caltrans-maintained? That's been done with other routes, such as 1 in Santa Monica and a few other places to the south, to maintain a semblance of a continuous route.

Another example of a discontinuous route is 54, with a never-built segment in the middle with an implied connection over a county road, plus a relinquished segment within El Cajon city limits. (That relinquishment, unusually, does not require the city or Caltrans to pretend that 54 still exists within city limits. An End 54 sign at the southern city limits officializes the truncation.)
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Avalanchez71 on September 15, 2016, 02:27:29 PM
Fritz Owl would just advise that these should not be CA state routes but become interstate routes and roll on through the parks and monuments.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Max Rockatansky on September 15, 2016, 03:07:11 PM
190 is the only one that can realistically be connected, via Sherman Pass. 178 might be  possible as some roads do cross into Death Valley. None of the others will be completed.

178 would be a simple fix on Trona Road.   Swap maintenance with Inyo County on the eastern 178 and then at minimum there would be a complete route to 190.  Badwater really ought to be the wonky county maintained route given how much it gets washed out in Death Valley National Park anyways.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: TheStranger on September 15, 2016, 04:07:39 PM
  • California Route 160 - Thanks to the relinquishing of the route through downtown Sacramento, we have a small piece north of Sacramento, and the rest in South Sacramento.[/*]
Is there any continuation signage in the relinquished segment, to link the two segments that are still Caltrans-maintained? That's been done with other routes, such as 1 in Santa Monica and a few other places to the south, to maintain a semblance of a continuous route.

No signage linking the two segments at all now, probably because I-5 between Richards Boulevard and Cosumnes River Boulevard has become the predominant north-south through route between the American River south shore and Freeport.

Another example of a discontinuous route is 54, with a never-built segment in the middle with an implied connection over a county road, plus a relinquished segment within El Cajon city limits. (That relinquishment, unusually, does not require the city or Caltrans to pretend that 54 still exists within city limits. An End 54 sign at the southern city limits officializes the truncation.)

Wasn't the middle section signed as Route 54 at one time (unlike the Route 39 gap north of Whittier and south of Azusa)?
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: emory on September 15, 2016, 04:44:27 PM
And 39....well that's just 39.

The 39 gap is now closed and defined. It's up to Caltrans to sign the road.

Quote
339.  Route 39 is from:
   (a) Route 1 near Huntington Beach to the southern city limit of
Buena Park.
   (b) Route 5 in Buena Park to Route 72 in La Habra via Beach
Boulevard.
   (c) Beach Boulevard to Harbor Boulevard in La Habra via Whittier
Boulevard.
   (d) Whittier Boulevard in La Habra to Route 2 via Harbor Boulevard
to the vicinity of Fullerton Road, then to Azusa Avenue, Azusa
Avenue to San Gabriel Canyon Road, San Gabriel Avenue southbound
between Azusa Avenue and San Gabriel Canyon Road, and San Gabriel
Canyon Road, other than the portion of the segment described by this
subdivision that is within the city limits of Azusa, Covina, and West
Covina.

But as you can see, local relinquishments have created NEW gaps!
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Max Rockatansky on September 15, 2016, 04:53:23 PM
And 39....well that's just 39.

The 39 gap is now closed and defined. It's up to Caltrans to sign the road.

Quote
339.  Route 39 is from:
   (a) Route 1 near Huntington Beach to the southern city limit of
Buena Park.
   (b) Route 5 in Buena Park to Route 72 in La Habra via Beach
Boulevard.
   (c) Beach Boulevard to Harbor Boulevard in La Habra via Whittier
Boulevard.
   (d) Whittier Boulevard in La Habra to Route 2 via Harbor Boulevard
to the vicinity of Fullerton Road, then to Azusa Avenue, Azusa
Avenue to San Gabriel Canyon Road, San Gabriel Avenue southbound
between Azusa Avenue and San Gabriel Canyon Road, and San Gabriel
Canyon Road, other than the portion of the segment described by this
subdivision that is within the city limits of Azusa, Covina, and West
Covina.

But as you can see, local relinquishments have created NEW gaps!

Yet up in the mountains it still remains in the field...except not since it will likely never be fixed.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Occidental Tourist on September 15, 2016, 05:12:34 PM
And 39....well that's just 39.

The 39 gap is now closed and defined. It's up to Caltrans to sign the road.

Quote
339.  Route 39 is from:
   (a) Route 1 near Huntington Beach to the southern city limit of
Buena Park.
   (b) Route 5 in Buena Park to Route 72 in La Habra via Beach
Boulevard.
   (c) Beach Boulevard to Harbor Boulevard in La Habra via Whittier
Boulevard.
   (d) Whittier Boulevard in La Habra to Route 2 via Harbor Boulevard
to the vicinity of Fullerton Road, then to Azusa Avenue, Azusa
Avenue to San Gabriel Canyon Road, San Gabriel Avenue southbound
between Azusa Avenue and San Gabriel Canyon Road, and San Gabriel
Canyon Road, other than the portion of the segment described by this
subdivision that is within the city limits of Azusa, Covina, and West
Covina.

But as you can see, local relinquishments have created NEW gaps!

Quote
The relinquished former portions of Route 39 within the city
limits of Azusa, Buena Park, Covina, and West Covina are not state
highways and are not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the
relinquished former portions of Route 39, the Cities of Azusa, Buena
Park, Covina, and West Covina shall maintain within their respective
jurisdictions signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route
39.

The giant gap in the San Gabriel Valley that's never coming back suggests that one of the remaining segments (and I'd nominate the northern segment through San Gabriel Canyon) be renumbered to something like Route 31 or Route 339.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Occidental Tourist on September 15, 2016, 05:21:28 PM
Down south, we have the discontinuous Route 90, which will only be connected if and when Caltrans identifies a route through about 20 miles of heavily urbanized and mostly residential area . . . so it will never be joined.

I've previously suggested that the eastern portion of Route 90 simply be renumbered as a continuation of Route 72.  But I've discovered an interesting wrinkle with that.  Because Route 72 was formerly Route 101, all of the post-mile markers increase in number from south to north.  Thus although Route 72 currently is mostly an east-west route across Whittier, the lower post-mile numbers are on the eastern end of the route (i.e., southern end of former Route 101) increasing as they go west.

In a traditional east-west highway routing, the post-mile numbers would go from west to east, as they currently do on the eastern portion of Route 90, i.e., the post-mile numbers are lower in La Habra than they are at the eastern terminus in Yorba Linda.

Marrying Route 72 to the eastern part of Route 90 would mean you'd have post-mile numbers increasing in both directions from where the routes were joined.  I don't know if this would be an insurmountable issue for Caltrans if the decision to fix the discontinuity of Route 90 was addressed this way.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: emory on September 15, 2016, 05:22:22 PM
The giant gap in the San Gabriel Valley that's never coming back suggests that one of the remaining segments (and I'd nominate the northern segment through San Gabriel Canyon) be renumbered to something like Route 31 or Route 339.

If they were to renumber the northern segment, they shouldn't even bother to sign it since it's a road to nowhere. Just end CA 39 at Badillo Street north of I-10 and call it a day.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: oscar on September 15, 2016, 06:36:04 PM
And 39....well that's just 39.

The 39 gap is now closed and defined. It's up to Caltrans to sign the road.

Quote
339.  Route 39 is from:
   (a) Route 1 near Huntington Beach to the southern city limit of
Buena Park.
   (b) Route 5 in Buena Park to Route 72 in La Habra via Beach
Boulevard.
   (c) Beach Boulevard to Harbor Boulevard in La Habra via Whittier
Boulevard.
   (d) Whittier Boulevard in La Habra to Route 2 via Harbor Boulevard
to the vicinity of Fullerton Road, then to Azusa Avenue, Azusa
Avenue to San Gabriel Canyon Road, San Gabriel Avenue southbound
between Azusa Avenue and San Gabriel Canyon Road, and San Gabriel
Canyon Road, other than the portion of the segment described by this
subdivision that is within the city limits of Azusa, Covina, and West
Covina.

Except the segment between La Habra and I-10 is still a gap, not legislatively but rather that the new road 39 was to follow was never built. The parallel existing road filling that gap is still, and signed only as, a county road. An End 39 sign in La Habra (which I photographed in 2014) confirms that the gap remains:

(http://www.alaskaroads.com/end-CA39-LaHabra_DSC3175.jpg)
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 15, 2016, 06:41:41 PM
I always found the discontinuous state highway routes rather mysterious. Are there any other states that have discontinuous state highways like California? I can't think of any where I live in Wisconsin.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: TheStranger on September 15, 2016, 07:15:27 PM
I always found the discontinuous state highway routes rather mysterious. Are there any other states that have discontinuous state highways like California? I can't think of any where I live in Wisconsin.

Oklahoma for instance has a SH 74 that is no longer continuous (the gap goes through most of Oklahoma City)

Indiana has several routes with gaps despite an existing road connection between segments, if I'm not mistaken.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Avalanchez71 on September 15, 2016, 07:21:38 PM
Florida has route designations that are discontinuous.  Tennessee has Secondary State Routes that are discontinuous as well.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: oscar on September 15, 2016, 07:51:18 PM
Alaska has two unconnected AK 10 segments, and four AK 7 segments. The original plans to connect the AK 10 segments were foiled by the 1964 Good Friday earthquake which tore up much of the old railbed, and strong public opposition to reviving those plans. I'm not sure the story behind the AK 7 segments, but there may once have been plans to build connecting roads and bridges through the southeast panhandle. Such will happen only in FritzOwl's dreams, but the state never bothered to change the route designations.

Maryland has a bunch of bypassed old highway alignments (several 800s come to mind), which remain state-maintained and as such remain numbered (but not always signed).
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: emory on September 15, 2016, 07:53:04 PM
Except the segment between La Habra and I-10 is still a gap, not legislatively but rather that the new road 39 was to follow was never built. The parallel existing road filling that gap is still, and signed only as, a county road. An End 39 sign in La Habra (which I photographed in 2014) confirms that the gap remains:

(http://www.alaskaroads.com/end-CA39-LaHabra_DSC3175.jpg)

Hence why I said those roads should be signed. I've been through that intersection a few times recently. CR N8 only overlaps it with Azusa Ave.

Florida has route designations that are discontinuous.  Tennessee has Secondary State Routes that are discontinuous as well.

In Florida, most discontinuous state roads are relinquished to county control, where policy is to retain the state highway number. So if a piece of State Road 600 is relinquished to the county, they'll sign it as County Road 600 with blue pentagon shields, which makes easier for navigation.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: JasonOfORoads on September 15, 2016, 08:04:00 PM
I've previously suggested that the eastern portion of Route 90 simply be renumbered as a continuation of Route 72.  But I've discovered an interesting wrinkle with that.  Because Route 72 was formerly Route 101, all of the post-mile markers increase in number from south to north.  Thus although Route 72 currently is mostly an east-west route across Whittier, the lower post-mile numbers are on the eastern end of the route (i.e., southern end of former Route 101) increasing as they go west.

In a traditional east-west highway routing, the post-mile numbers would go from west to east, as they currently do on the eastern portion of Route 90, i.e., the post-mile numbers are lower in La Habra than they are at the eastern terminus in Yorba Linda.

Marrying Route 72 to the eastern part of Route 90 would mean you'd have post-mile numbers increasing in both directions from where the routes were joined.  I don't know if this would be an insurmountable issue for Caltrans if the decision to fix the discontinuity of Route 90 was addressed this way.

72 crosses the LA/Orange county line just before the junction with 39, which helps since it only runs for 0.497 miles in the OC. The PMs run west-to-east from ORA 11.918 (county line) to ORA 11.421 (Jct 39). 90 starts at ORA 0.500 (Jct 39) and ends at ORA 12.828 (Jct 91).

If 72 were to supplant 90, CalTrans could do any number of things:
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: oscar on September 15, 2016, 08:04:54 PM
Hence why I said those roads should be signed. I've been through that intersection a few times recently. CR N8 only overlaps it with Azusa Ave.

Even if they don't meet state route standards (Caltrans' usual excuse for not re-signing an existing road)? In the case of N8, Caltrans wanted to build a new freeway, rather than try to upgrade the existing county route. (Not obvious to me, though, that it would be impractical to do modest upgrades of the existing road.)
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: JasonOfORoads on September 15, 2016, 08:16:06 PM
Route 19 has two interesting discontinuities which cause it to technically have 3 different sections:
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: JasonOfORoads on September 15, 2016, 08:38:21 PM
I always found the discontinuous state highway routes rather mysterious. Are there any other states that have discontinuous state highways like California? I can't think of any where I live in Wisconsin.

Oregon requires that cities and counties that take over maintenance of a signed section of highway continue to sign the through route. Thus, even though OR-10 has had many sections cut out of it, it is still signed contiguously as OR-10 on those former sections. I'm certain this is because (for the uninitiated) Oregon maintains a hidden highway system separate from its route system. However, since 2002 when Oregon started assigning routes to unmarked state highways, it created a few discontinuous routes. Most, like OR-141/Hall Blvd. in the Portland area, remain unsigned, so the gaps are on paper only.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: roadfro on September 15, 2016, 11:02:44 PM
I always found the discontinuous state highway routes rather mysterious. Are there any other states that have discontinuous state highways like California? I can't think of any where I live in Wisconsin.

Nevada has a few routes with discontinuous sections. These are usually in urban areas, sometimes the result of relinquishments to local jurisdiction.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: TheStranger on September 16, 2016, 12:03:45 AM
Hence why I said those roads should be signed. I've been through that intersection a few times recently. CR N8 only overlaps it with Azusa Ave.

Even if they don't meet state route standards (Caltrans' usual excuse for not re-signing an existing road)? In the case of N8, Caltrans wanted to build a new freeway, rather than try to upgrade the existing county route. (Not obvious to me, though, that it would be impractical to do modest upgrades of the existing road.)

Even before the freeway era, I've seen at least one 1940s map showing the gap between Azusa and La Habra on Route 39...I want to say it was on Mark Fuqueron's webpage that isn't working now though.

(This leads back to my entire philosophy that route numbering in California really should be navigationally-based rather than legislatively-derived: how is it that the county road linking Route 39 from the north edge of Orange County to Azusa isn't worthy of being given route signage, yet Route 173 had for a long time an unpaved segment?!)
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: sparker on September 16, 2016, 02:39:20 AM
Interestingly enough, the non-state-highway gap in 39 was actually signed from about 1958 to the mid-70's -- with older porcelain-white button-copy 1955-type shields -- in fact signage indicating route continuity was at least as complete, if not more so, than other urban state highways in District 7.  Los Angeles County maintained the signage, with at least the tacit complicity of the Division of Highways, who likely supplied the shields themselves. 

North to south, the route was signed from the I-10/Azusa Ave. interchange, using South Garvey Avenue (the south I-10 frontage road) west from Azusa immediately south of the interchange.  It was signed west right along the frontage road to Hacienda Blvd., where it turned southwest.  It continued on Hacienda Blvd. south through West Covina, La Puente, and Hacienda Heights before going over the top of the Puente Hills.  The Hacienda Blvd./quasi-SSR 39 alignment continued to Whittier Blvd., where it turned west to Beach Blvd.  The full signage of this section lasted until the 1964 renumbering, when state highway shields were changed to white-on-green. 

After 1964, the county apparently lost interest in signage of this route; the black-on-white shields disappeared along the South Garvey frontage road, and were seen only sporadically along Hacienda.  Curiously, when the CA 60/Pomona Freeway was completed through Hacienda Heights in late 1967, the Hacienda Blvd. exit signage showed that street as CA 39.  When CA 72 was signed on Whittier Blvd and Harbor Blvd. in La Habra in 1968, the junction with Hacienda Blvd. clearly indicated that route as CA 39, complete with new green shields.  However, Hacienda Blvd. itself remained sporadically signed, even immediately north and south of the CA 60 freeway.  After 1964, there was no signage on southbound CA 39 to indicate that it continued south of I-10; northbound, the signage simply "petered out" north of Francisquito Avenue in West Covina.  The expansion of the Westfield West Covina mall in the 1970's, which included a reconfiguration of Hacienda Blvd. that moved the main flow of traffic to Vincent Ave. west of the mall and the downgrading of Hacienda Ave. from Vincent north to South Garvey to more or less an access road to the east side of the mall essentially put a nail in the CA 39 signage "coffin".  By 1982, a "TO" banner was placed on the CA 60 BGS reference to CA 39; a few years later, the shield was greened out completely. 

In the early 2000's there was one "straggler" green CA 39 shield on NB Hacienda north of Anza; it was gone by 2010, the last time I used that street.  With the north end of Hacienda Blvd. essentially a mall access road, and South Garvey having been truncated when the I-10/Azusa Ave. interchange was reworked in the '80's, there is no current physical continuity along the original L.A. County-signed route.  Hacienda Blvd. through the Puente Hills remains a twisting, curvy 2-lane road -- albeit well-delineated with Caltrans-type outer lane striping. 

Both the Harbor Blvd./Azusa Ave. corridor from east La Habra north to Covina -- the route described in the CA 39 legislative description -- and Colima Ave (county N8) crossing the hills to the west are multilane boulevards, but they certainly don't look like Caltrans-spec facilities (short left-turn pockets, curbs rather than shoulders), rather typical arterials through the housing tracts that line the Puente Hills.  My assesment is, and has been for some time now, that despite the state legislative description, none of the relevant jurisdictions have any interest in signing and maintaining any surface connection between northern Orange County and the east San Gabriel Valley.  IMHO, they may as well relinquish any vestiges of CA 39 north of Whittier Blvd.  Locals already know how to get up to the San Gabriel Canyon; tourists with GPS will find their way up there as well (and others just need to ask!).  Keep the canyon section signed, sign it as something else north of I-210, but forget anything south of there to La Habra.  Further south, Beach Blvd's identity as "Highway 39" is as longstanding as the modern existence of the region; it's appropriate, for navigational purposes, that such signage remains undisturbed.  But it's patently obvious that Caltrans wants and intends to shed as much surface-street mileage as it can; adding more just isn't in the cards.             
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: mrsman on September 16, 2016, 12:51:02 PM
I agree with Caltrans decision to get rid of signage on surface streets.  There is no reason why traffic should be directed on one surface street over another.  For all intents and purposes, through most of Orange County, there is no practical difference between Beach Blvd vs. Magnolia vs. Brookhurst.  All are multi-lane arterials serving their own piece of suburbia.  Yes, Beach Blvd may be longer, but as said by others, there is no reason why people can't use maps, GPS, or other devices to get from place to place.  These do not need Caltrans trailblazers.

The roads that do need trailblazers are highways that become city streets through very small sections, especially if they change direction within the city.  In the greater LA area, the only highway that fits that bill is CA-1.  Every other existing designation (such as CA-83, CA-90, CA-72, CA-39, CA-19, CA-107, CA-187, CA-213, CA-2 [along SM Blvd], CA-27) should be removed.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: TheStranger on September 16, 2016, 02:43:20 PM
I agree with Caltrans decision to get rid of signage on surface streets.  There is no reason why traffic should be directed on one surface street over another.  For all intents and purposes, through most of Orange County, there is no practical difference between Beach Blvd vs. Magnolia vs. Brookhurst.  All are multi-lane arterials serving their own piece of suburbia.  Yes, Beach Blvd may be longer, but as said by others, there is no reason why people can't use maps, GPS, or other devices to get from place to place.  These do not need Caltrans trailblazers.

The roads that do need trailblazers are highways that become city streets through very small sections, especially if they change direction within the city.  In the greater LA area, the only highway that fits that bill is CA-1.  Every other existing designation (such as CA-83, CA-90, CA-72, CA-39, CA-19, CA-107, CA-187, CA-213, CA-2 [along SM Blvd], CA-27) should be removed.

Route 27 at least south of US 101 still serves an area that isn't super urbanized.  IIRC Route 83 from Route 71 north to Route 60 isn't overly developed either.

At the same time, if a regional/suburban route offers a distinct commute corridor that is clearly more important than nearby roads, shouldn't it retain its state route designation?  The example that comes to mind would be Route 238 between the MacArthur Freeway/I-580 in Castro Valley and I-680 in Fremont.

Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: DTComposer on September 16, 2016, 03:52:39 PM
I agree with Caltrans decision to get rid of signage on surface streets.  There is no reason why traffic should be directed on one surface street over another.  For all intents and purposes, through most of Orange County, there is no practical difference between Beach Blvd vs. Magnolia vs. Brookhurst.

I disagree here:
Beach almost always has at least one more lane in each direction than Magnolia or Brookhurst;
Beach runs through almost entirely commercial districts as opposed to Magnolia or Brookhurst which mainly run through residential districts;
Beach connects the downtowns and/or civic centers of Huntington Beach, Westminster, and Buena Park, as well as a significant tourist destination in Knott's Berry Farm;
Beach runs from PCH all the way to Whittier Boulevard, whereas Brookhurst and Magnolia both end several miles short (at Commonwealth).

I'm not saying that Brookhurst, Magnolia and others aren't major arterials, but Beach is well above them, and is one of the few surface streets in the L.A. region that still deserve state highway status.

Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Occidental Tourist on September 16, 2016, 06:36:34 PM
I agree with Caltrans decision to get rid of signage on surface streets.  There is no reason why traffic should be directed on one surface street over another.  For all intents and purposes, through most of Orange County, there is no practical difference between Beach Blvd vs. Magnolia vs. Brookhurst.

I disagree here:
Beach almost always has at least one more lane in each direction than Magnolia or Brookhurst;
Beach runs through almost entirely commercial districts as opposed to Magnolia or Brookhurst which mainly run through residential districts;
Beach connects the downtowns and/or civic centers of Huntington Beach, Westminster, and Buena Park, as well as a significant tourist destination in Knott's Berry Farm;
Beach runs from PCH all the way to Whittier Boulevard, whereas Brookhurst and Magnolia both end several miles short (at Commonwealth).

I'm not saying that Brookhurst, Magnolia and others aren't major arterials, but Beach is well above them, and is one of the few surface streets in the L.A. region that still deserve state highway status.



Beach is also a designated Smart Street with traffic light timing designed to facilitate interregional travel as opposed to address local traffic.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Occidental Tourist on September 16, 2016, 06:38:52 PM
I agree with Caltrans decision to get rid of signage on surface streets.  There is no reason why traffic should be directed on one surface street over another.  For all intents and purposes, through most of Orange County, there is no practical difference between Beach Blvd vs. Magnolia vs. Brookhurst.  All are multi-lane arterials serving their own piece of suburbia.  Yes, Beach Blvd may be longer, but as said by others, there is no reason why people can't use maps, GPS, or other devices to get from place to place.  These do not need Caltrans trailblazers.

The roads that do need trailblazers are highways that become city streets through very small sections, especially if they change direction within the city.  In the greater LA area, the only highway that fits that bill is CA-1.  Every other existing designation (such as CA-83, CA-90, CA-72, CA-39, CA-19, CA-107, CA-187, CA-213, CA-2 [along SM Blvd], CA-27) should be removed.

But the issue is relinquishment.  If the Legislature is fine with unsigned state highways on urban streets, then I agree that it's sensible to de-sign the above-indicated routes with  one exception:  I'd keep Route 83 simply because the southern half of it is rural.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: andy3175 on September 17, 2016, 02:16:08 AM
Another example of a discontinuous route is 54, with a never-built segment in the middle with an implied connection over a county road, plus a relinquished segment within El Cajon city limits. (That relinquishment, unusually, does not require the city or Caltrans to pretend that 54 still exists within city limits. An End 54 sign at the southern city limits officializes the truncation.)

Wasn't the middle section signed as Route 54 at one time (unlike the Route 39 gap north of Whittier and south of Azusa)?

Even before SR 54 was relinquished to city control within El Cajon in the late 1990s, I don't recall S17 being signed as part of SR 54. The reason is that SR 54 was slowly extending its way east from Bonita and Paradise Hills toward Spring Valley. The connection of SR 54 to SR 125 essentially extended the freeway segment of the route as far as it is currently through the 2000s. But the section between SR 125 and SR 94 has not been built, and S17 remains signed on that county-maintained route. I am not sure how much longer the north-south segment of SR 54 north of SR 94 will remain. It depends on whether Caltrans is actively seeking decommissioning of that portion of the highway. Route maps for proposed state highways show SR 54 is intended to be realigned a bit to the east for an eventual expressway connection to I-8. But given that is not within the SANDAG regional transportation plan, I don't know when if ever SR 54 will be placed onto a new alignment for an expressway connection between SR 94 and I-8 east of El Cajon.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: sparker on September 18, 2016, 12:32:37 AM
I agree with Caltrans decision to get rid of signage on surface streets.  There is no reason why traffic should be directed on one surface street over another.  For all intents and purposes, through most of Orange County, there is no practical difference between Beach Blvd vs. Magnolia vs. Brookhurst.  All are multi-lane arterials serving their own piece of suburbia.  Yes, Beach Blvd may be longer, but as said by others, there is no reason why people can't use maps, GPS, or other devices to get from place to place.  These do not need Caltrans trailblazers.

The roads that do need trailblazers are highways that become city streets through very small sections, especially if they change direction within the city.  In the greater LA area, the only highway that fits that bill is CA-1.  Every other existing designation (such as CA-83, CA-90, CA-72, CA-39, CA-19, CA-107, CA-187, CA-213, CA-2 [along SM Blvd], CA-27) should be removed.

But the issue is relinquishment.  If the Legislature is fine with unsigned state highways on urban streets, then I agree that it's sensible to de-sign the above-indicated routes with  one exception:  I'd keep Route 83 simply because the southern half of it is rural.
I'd add one other requirement for relinquishment or de-signage:  that the essential through-traffic function of the signed route has been effectively obviated by the presence of a nearby freeway or expressway.  Of the routes cited above, I'd retain CA 27 because of the section through the Santa Monica Mountains; it functions as a major intraregional connector between the Malibu area and the San Fernando Valley -- and its function is not closely duplicated by a limited-access facility.  And I agree with the retention of CA 83, primarily as a "feeder" from the CA 71 freeway/expressway corridor to central Ontario (and the airport!).  I have given my reasons for retaining CA 39 south of La Habra in a previous post to this thread (its historic equivalency value to Beach Boulevard).  But the others (107, 213, etc.) could be disposed of without much effect, as any through function is duplicated or mirrored by more efficient nearby facilities. 
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Quillz on September 18, 2016, 02:37:08 PM
I always found the discontinuous state highway routes rather mysterious. Are there any other states that have discontinuous state highways like California? I can't think of any where I live in Wisconsin.
I don't think it's nearly as common because most states do the logical thing and maintain signage for navigation, regardless of who actually owns/maintains the road. Gotta love California and their legislative route number system.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Quillz on September 18, 2016, 02:40:28 PM
I agree with Caltrans decision to get rid of signage on surface streets.  There is no reason why traffic should be directed on one surface street over another.  For all intents and purposes, through most of Orange County, there is no practical difference between Beach Blvd vs. Magnolia vs. Brookhurst.  All are multi-lane arterials serving their own piece of suburbia.  Yes, Beach Blvd may be longer, but as said by others, there is no reason why people can't use maps, GPS, or other devices to get from place to place.  These do not need Caltrans trailblazers.

The roads that do need trailblazers are highways that become city streets through very small sections, especially if they change direction within the city.  In the greater LA area, the only highway that fits that bill is CA-1.  Every other existing designation (such as CA-83, CA-90, CA-72, CA-39, CA-19, CA-107, CA-187, CA-213, CA-2 [along SM Blvd], CA-27) should be removed.
I agree with some of this, but CA-27 is not a route that should be removed. It one of three viable Santa Monica Mountains crossings west of the 405, the others being N1 (Malibu Canyon Road) and N9 (Kanan Road). I actually don't think CA-23 is a particular good crossing, and it realistically should be realigned onto Kanan Road. CA-27 is the best way to get from the Valley to Malibu, especially as the 101 becomes heavily congested as soon as you leave the Calabasas area.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: silverback1065 on September 18, 2016, 10:52:08 PM
I always found the discontinuous state highway routes rather mysterious. Are there any other states that have discontinuous state highways like California? I can't think of any where I live in Wisconsin.

Oklahoma for instance has a SH 74 that is no longer continuous (the gap goes through most of Oklahoma City)

Indiana has several routes with gaps despite an existing road connection between segments, if I'm not mistaken.

Yes, Indiana does this all the time, we have several routes that make no sense now, see lafayette as an example. 
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Max Rockatansky on September 18, 2016, 11:03:08 PM
I always liked how FDOT handled relinquishment by having the old state highway become a county route of the same number.  Basically you could go on a long route west like FL 40 and have it become a CR for a portion of it's distance.  You'd think with all the lettered county routes in California that something like that would fit right in for route continuity.  It actually works really well with CA 59 and J59...the casual observer would only know that they were on "highway 59."  But then again California more subscribes to the theory of route signage is for showing maintenance rather than navigation in most instances.  The weird part is that there is so many inconsistencies with legislative definitions where multiplexes are signed in the field but are gapped on paper or signage exists in areas that aren't under control of Caltrans like Grant Grove with CA 180.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: roadfro on September 19, 2016, 01:19:25 AM
I always liked how FDOT handled relinquishment by having the old state highway become a county route of the same number.  Basically you could go on a long route west like FL 40 and have it become a CR for a portion of it's distance.  You'd think with all the lettered county routes in California that something like that would fit right in for route continuity.  It actually works really well with CA 59 and J59...the casual observer would only know that they were on "highway 59."  But then again California more subscribes to the theory of route signage is for showing maintenance rather than navigation in most instances.  The weird part is that there is so many inconsistencies with legislative definitions where multiplexes are signed in the field but are gapped on paper or signage exists in areas that aren't under control of Caltrans like Grant Grove with CA 180.

Regarding the bolded statement: Doesn't California technically subscribe to the theory that route signage is more for navigation? I say this because when state routes are relinquished, they usually add to legislative description (or elsewhere) something along the lines of "the City of YYY shall maintain signage directing motorists to the continuation of Route XX". (Whether or not this stipulation is consistently followed is another story...)
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: TheStranger on September 19, 2016, 01:28:21 AM
I always liked how FDOT handled relinquishment by having the old state highway become a county route of the same number.  Basically you could go on a long route west like FL 40 and have it become a CR for a portion of it's distance.  You'd think with all the lettered county routes in California that something like that would fit right in for route continuity.  It actually works really well with CA 59 and J59...the casual observer would only know that they were on "highway 59."  But then again California more subscribes to the theory of route signage is for showing maintenance rather than navigation in most instances.  The weird part is that there is so many inconsistencies with legislative definitions where multiplexes are signed in the field but are gapped on paper or signage exists in areas that aren't under control of Caltrans like Grant Grove with CA 180.

Regarding the bolded statement: Doesn't California technically subscribe to the theory that route signage is more for navigation? I say this because when state routes are relinquished, they usually add to legislative description (or elsewhere) something along the lines of "the City of YYY shall maintain signage directing motorists to the continuation of Route XX". (Whether or not this stipulation is consistently followed is another story...)

Part of it is Caltrans not even following that stipulation themselves in their own practices, even in routes that aren't unsigned roads (so not examples like Route 35 south of Route 9, or the unsigned Route 181 corridor near Guerneville).

Route 128 west of Winters, at least eight or nine years ago, had like one westbound shield heading through/out of town, then nothing for miles (other than the callboxes noting that it was a state road).  I also recall very clearly in the last five years Route 18 having no shields between Route 138 in Palmdale and at least US 395 near Victorville.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Max Rockatansky on September 19, 2016, 07:14:47 AM
I always liked how FDOT handled relinquishment by having the old state highway become a county route of the same number.  Basically you could go on a long route west like FL 40 and have it become a CR for a portion of it's distance.  You'd think with all the lettered county routes in California that something like that would fit right in for route continuity.  It actually works really well with CA 59 and J59...the casual observer would only know that they were on "highway 59."  But then again California more subscribes to the theory of route signage is for showing maintenance rather than navigation in most instances.  The weird part is that there is so many inconsistencies with legislative definitions where multiplexes are signed in the field but are gapped on paper or signage exists in areas that aren't under control of Caltrans like Grant Grove with CA 180.

Regarding the bolded statement: Doesn't California technically subscribe to the theory that route signage is more for navigation? I say this because when state routes are relinquished, they usually add to legislative description (or elsewhere) something along the lines of "the City of YYY shall maintain signage directing motorists to the continuation of Route XX". (Whether or not this stipulation is consistently followed is another story...)

I believe that they actually do at times.  I don't want to quote this as gospel without jumping over to cahighways but I'm fairly certain an example would be the CA 198 expressway in Kings County.  I'm fairly certain that the legislative description still includes that part of the route even though there is a relinquishment.  WHICH hence might explain why there are plentiful signs along that highway and why that might not be the case on others.  Another wrinkle in this might be Caltrans Districts themselves.  It seems like sometimes a section is relinquished in most instances the signed aren't pulled right away....but rather just disappear over time and aren't replaced consistently.  Then again if the section of a highway is relinquished but still technically remains in the legislative description, doesn't that mean that it's the responsibility of whatever locality to put the green shields up?  Going back to that example with Florida, that's actually how the practice actually worked for a long time.  The FL State Route shield would remain but someone would usually slap a "C" on the sign to denote it was county maintained.  As the signs weathered significantly they were replaced with the cheaper MUTCD County Route marker.  If I recall correctly, aren't most older spades actually baked relective green paint with vinyl numbers affixed to them?  That design always seemed to last a lot longer and usually you can tell when see one because the green part of the sign looks good while the numbers are yellowed out or have a stained appearance.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: coatimundi on September 19, 2016, 09:25:50 AM
I don't want to quote this as gospel without jumping over to cahighways but I'm fairly certain an example would be the CA 198 expressway in Kings County.  I'm fairly certain that the legislative description still includes that part of the route even though there is a relinquishment.

I think you're implying here that the 198 freeway and expressway were relinquished to Hanford and Kings County after its more recent improvements, but it's just surface streets that were relinquished. For instance, the streets that used to intersect 198 at grade and were rebuilt as interchanges by Caltrans, like 12th Avenue, the new portion of that street, passing under or over the freeway, was relinquished.

The examples of signed relinquishments are more in cities though. For instance, 130 is signed well west of its official ending at the San Jose city limits, including at both the 101 and 680 interchanges. It's not technically a state highway for a few miles away from those interchanges, but the signs are used to direct people to that highway.
Meanwhile, 84 isn't signed at all within West Sacramento.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: lordsutch on September 19, 2016, 10:10:25 AM
I always found the discontinuous state highway routes rather mysterious. Are there any other states that have discontinuous state highways like California? I can't think of any where I live in Wisconsin.

Arkansas has quite a few examples (not to mention US 63). There are also several examples in Mississippi, some of which are proposed to be completed in the future (MS 15 being the most notable).
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: oscar on September 19, 2016, 11:26:26 AM
I don't want to quote this as gospel without jumping over to cahighways but I'm fairly certain an example would be the CA 198 expressway in Kings County.  I'm fairly certain that the legislative description still includes that part of the route even though there is a relinquishment.

I think you're implying here that the 198 freeway and expressway were relinquished to Hanford and Kings County after its more recent improvements, but it's just surface streets that were relinquished. For instance, the streets that used to intersect 198 at grade and were rebuilt as interchanges by Caltrans, like 12th Avenue, the new portion of that street, passing under or over the freeway, was relinquished.

Indeed, not only does cahighways.org not show any relinquishment for that part of CA 198 (http://www.cahighways.org/193-200.html#198), neither does the statutory route definition in the Streets and Highway Code (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=shc&group=00001-01000&file=300-635) (specifically section 498).

The statute doesn't specifically authorize transfer of cross streets that are no longer part of route 198, once the route was realigned either above or below the streets. But I'm not sure that such specific authorization is needed, where there is no break created in the state highway.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: myosh_tino on September 19, 2016, 01:25:01 PM
The examples of signed relinquishments are more in cities though. For instance, 130 is signed well west of its official ending at the San Jose city limits, including at both the 101 and 680 interchanges. It's not technically a state highway for a few miles away from those interchanges, but the signs are used to direct people to that highway.

If it was well signed, it isn't any longer.  Our local transit agency is adding a BRT line down the middle of Alum Rock Ave/CA-130 so just about all existing street lighting and signals have been or will be replaced.  Additionally, while CA-130 appears on exit signs on US 101, it has never appeared on signs along I-680.

Doing a quick "drive", via GMSV, down Alum Rock starting at US 101, the first mention of CA-130 is just before the turn-off onto Mt Hamilton Road.

Oddly enough, Google Maps still shows CA-130 beginning at US 101.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: silverback1065 on September 19, 2016, 07:00:07 PM
I always found the discontinuous state highway routes rather mysterious. Are there any other states that have discontinuous state highways like California? I can't think of any where I live in Wisconsin.

Arkansas has quite a few examples (not to mention US 63). There are also several examples in Mississippi, some of which are proposed to be completed in the future (MS 15 being the most notable).

there's really a discontinuity in a US highway? I thought that wasn't allowed, except for US 2 and yellowstone.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: sdmichael on September 19, 2016, 07:49:38 PM
US 101 has never been completed "technically" in California. The Golden Gate Bridge is NOT part of the State Highway system and is not a part of Route 101 (or Route 1). So, it has a gap.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: lordsutch on September 19, 2016, 08:00:16 PM
I always found the discontinuous state highway routes rather mysterious. Are there any other states that have discontinuous state highways like California? I can't think of any where I live in Wisconsin.

Arkansas has quite a few examples (not to mention US 63). There are also several examples in Mississippi, some of which are proposed to be completed in the future (MS 15 being the most notable).

there's really a discontinuity in a US highway? I thought that wasn't allowed, except for US 2 and yellowstone.
US 63 simply disappears between its intersection with I-40 and its intersection with I-55. You could chalk this up to AHTD not signing multiplexes, and maybe they claimed it exists between the two points to AASHTO when US 63 was extended south of I-40 down to I-20, but there's no actual evidence it exists in the field.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Max Rockatansky on September 19, 2016, 09:44:23 PM
I always found the discontinuous state highway routes rather mysterious. Are there any other states that have discontinuous state highways like California? I can't think of any where I live in Wisconsin.

Arkansas has quite a few examples (not to mention US 63). There are also several examples in Mississippi, some of which are proposed to be completed in the future (MS 15 being the most notable).

there's really a discontinuity in a US highway? I thought that wasn't allowed, except for US 2 and yellowstone.
US 63 simply disappears between its intersection with I-40 and its intersection with I-55. You could chalk this up to AHTD not signing multiplexes, and maybe they claimed it exists between the two points to AASHTO when US 63 was extended south of I-40 down to I-20, but there's no actual evidence it exists in the field.

US 422 has two segments that are a pretty good ways apart in PA.  US 10 still has a ferry gap via Lake Michigan and so did US 16 before it was replaced by I-96.

I don't want to quote this as gospel without jumping over to cahighways but I'm fairly certain an example would be the CA 198 expressway in Kings County.  I'm fairly certain that the legislative description still includes that part of the route even though there is a relinquishment.

I think you're implying here that the 198 freeway and expressway were relinquished to Hanford and Kings County after its more recent improvements, but it's just surface streets that were relinquished. For instance, the streets that used to intersect 198 at grade and were rebuilt as interchanges by Caltrans, like 12th Avenue, the new portion of that street, passing under or over the freeway, was relinquished.

The examples of signed relinquishments are more in cities though. For instance, 130 is signed well west of its official ending at the San Jose city limits, including at both the 101 and 680 interchanges. It's not technically a state highway for a few miles away from those interchanges, but the signs are used to direct people to that highway.
Meanwhile, 84 isn't signed at all within West Sacramento.

Yeah 4 AM wasn't the best time to do reference searches, I just tried to think of one but I knew there were other examples...especially in urban areas. 
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: coatimundi on September 20, 2016, 03:25:54 AM
Yeah 4 AM wasn't the best time to do reference searches, I just tried to think of one but I knew there were other examples...especially in urban areas.

No, because that's when the East Coast is just starting to get online. Next time, try between midnight and 2am. Smooth sailing.
The Hanford thing is confusing because there are so many details to it, but that's just because it was one of the only freeway upgrades created in the last few years, meaning that practically everything produced around it was digital and thus placed online. For instance, if the 91 or southern 215 had been constructed in the internet age, then I bet we'd have a ton of relinquishments showing up (or maybe it was just implied). The wording is confusing but, if you go out and look (remember: 12am-2am only), the City of Hanford has a document online about the relinquishment of 12th Avenue, complete with a map. You have to think of it like this: there was an intersection with a state highway, Caltrans owned that, and the freeway coming in removed it; so the 12th Avenue portion of the former intersection needed to be relinquished since it isn't otherwise part of a state highway. I believe there are some side roads though where the freeway portion actually bypassed the original routing.

I'm not going to spend this very narrow research window virtually driving down Santa Clara Street in San Jose, but I recall there being a stray trailblazer along Santa Clara somewhere. But I could be wrong, because it was years ago that I saw that, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's been removed if it was there at all.

238 is also signed on I-238 and I-580, even though it technically ends pretty much right away as it enters Hayward.
Then, down where 92 has been similarly abandoned, it is signed along former 185/238, but that's because the definition actually indicates that it should be signed despite it not existing: "For the relinquished former portion of Route 92, the City of Hayward shall maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 92 or to the state highway system, as applicable"
And that's because it aids travelers. People want to reach 92. For 185 though, most people probably never even knew what it was, especially inside Hayward. It was always just Mission Boulevard.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Max Rockatansky on September 20, 2016, 07:21:53 AM
Heh....yeah that would require staying up past my 9:30-10 PM window to fall asleep, that ain't happenin.

Actually now that you mention the original pre-64 alignment of 198 between Hanford and NAS Lemoore, I did sort that out when I checked out the Parkfield Grade:

http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18621.25

Everything related to the original alignment is on reply 38, I also checked out history on 43 and the LRNs before.  Basically the pre-64 alignment split off from the current one at 7th Ave west on East Lacey.  From there it took 7th Street through downtown Hanford, Garner Ave to West Lacey, West Lacey to 14th Ave south to Armona, 14th Ave to Front Street, Front Street west to Hanford-Armona Road, Hanford-Armona west to Lemoore and 19th 1/2 Ave, 19th 1/2 Ave south to Jackson, and Jackson Ave west to where it merges back into the post-64 route.

Basically 198 was all over the place and zig-zagged through all the little farm towns in Kings County.  I have a suspicion about Grangeville Road, Douty, to Hanford-Armona but the alignment isn't as clear pre-WWII.  I don't think any of the roads I listed above all still owned by Caltrans anymore asides from part of 19th 1/2 Ave since part of it is still 41.  But that's one hell of an upgrade that happened back in the 1960s, I imagine that the military presence was the primary instigator because nearby routes like 65/69/245, 216, 201, 137, and 63 still have the sudden 90 degree turns.

In regards to relinquishment, it sounds like the signs largely stay if the legislative definition doesn't change and there is something that spells out who is maintaining the portion.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: coatimundi on September 20, 2016, 04:20:25 PM
Everything related to the original alignment is on reply 38, I also checked out history on 43 and the LRNs before.  Basically the pre-64 alignment split off from the current one at 7th Ave west on East Lacey.  From there it took 7th Street through downtown Hanford, Garner Ave to West Lacey, West Lacey to 14th Ave south to Armona, 14th Ave to Front Street, Front Street west to Hanford-Armona Road, Hanford-Armona west to Lemoore and 19th 1/2 Ave, 19th 1/2 Ave south to Jackson, and Jackson Ave west to where it merges back into the post-64 route.

Basically 198 was all over the place and zig-zagged through all the little farm towns in Kings County.  I have a suspicion about Grangeville Road, Douty, to Hanford-Armona but the alignment isn't as clear pre-WWII.  I don't think any of the roads I listed above all still owned by Caltrans anymore asides from part of 19th 1/2 Ave since part of it is still 41.  But that's one hell of an upgrade that happened back in the 1960s, I imagine that the military presence was the primary instigator because nearby routes like 65/69/245, 216, 201, 137, and 63 still have the sudden 90 degree turns.

I didn't look at your linked post, but it's shown pretty clearly on the 1927 topo map, even though it's not actually signed as 198. It shows it continuing on Lacey all the way to Highway 41, skipping Lemoore, then south to Jackson. I can't really make out what you're describing, but that sounds a bit different. There's a '47 and a '57 online too, and they may show different routings. It's unfortunate that Thomas Brothers never found Hanford, even today, to be worth having an inset map for, so it'd be a bit harder to determine the routings within town just on that alone. I would trust Thomas Brothers more than the USGS, but maybe that's just me.

I think you're missing my point on the signage. In Hayward, it's completely been removed on all the highways except for 92, and that's only because the definition says that they should sign it. If you look at the Mission Boulevard intersection, it's a weird looking sign too, so it's very likely city, as is the 880 shield below it. 92's endpoint after that relinquishment is really odd though: still within Hayward but not at another state highway. Maybe there's an explanation for that, but it seems silly. Why continue it past I-880 at all?
Google Maps, and probably other online software, seem to not give a harry f*ck about whether or not the route number is correct. Maybe they figure that, as long as they're more accurate than Apple Maps, they can be okay at that low bar. But it creates an issue where, I'm sure, someone, somewhere is looking for the route number. It's just like, a few months ago, I drove some women to a yarn expo in Santa Clara (I went to explore and watch a movie), and one had printed directions that had the exit number on it. It just happened to be one of those places in the state that actually had exit numbers on the signs, but what if it hadn't been? I knew where to get off, but if she was driving, she would have just kept going, looking for that exit number. Same with the route numbers: "Exit at CA 238 and turn right". Google Maps doesn't know any better. Maybe that's why they're still on the BGS'?
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: emory on September 20, 2016, 05:55:40 PM
I disagree here:
Beach almost always has at least one more lane in each direction than Magnolia or Brookhurst;
Beach runs through almost entirely commercial districts as opposed to Magnolia or Brookhurst which mainly run through residential districts;
Beach connects the downtowns and/or civic centers of Huntington Beach, Westminster, and Buena Park, as well as a significant tourist destination in Knott's Berry Farm;
Beach runs from PCH all the way to Whittier Boulevard, whereas Brookhurst and Magnolia both end several miles short (at Commonwealth).

I'm not saying that Brookhurst, Magnolia and others aren't major arterials, but Beach is well above them, and is one of the few surface streets in the L.A. region that still deserve state highway status.

And yet Caltrans still turned over SR 39 to Buena Park south of I-5.

I always liked how FDOT handled relinquishment by having the old state highway become a county route of the same number.  Basically you could go on a long route west like FL 40 and have it become a CR for a portion of it's distance.  You'd think with all the lettered county routes in California that something like that would fit right in for route continuity.  It actually works really well with CA 59 and J59...the casual observer would only know that they were on "highway 59."

The difference is while Florida more often relinquishes state highways to county control, California more often relinquishes state highways to city control, so they won't use the county pentagon.

US 101 has never been completed "technically" in California. The Golden Gate Bridge is NOT part of the State Highway system and is not a part of Route 101 (or Route 1). So, it has a gap.

But does a US highway have to be state maintained to count? Can't it just be a city controlled street carrying the federal designation? We do it with business routes all the time.


A quick aside: I noticed the Los Angeles International Airport segment of Route 170 has finally been deleted from its definition, narrowing it down to Route 5 to Route 101.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: silverback1065 on September 20, 2016, 06:22:02 PM
I disagree here:
Beach almost always has at least one more lane in each direction than Magnolia or Brookhurst;
Beach runs through almost entirely commercial districts as opposed to Magnolia or Brookhurst which mainly run through residential districts;
Beach connects the downtowns and/or civic centers of Huntington Beach, Westminster, and Buena Park, as well as a significant tourist destination in Knott's Berry Farm;
Beach runs from PCH all the way to Whittier Boulevard, whereas Brookhurst and Magnolia both end several miles short (at Commonwealth).

I'm not saying that Brookhurst, Magnolia and others aren't major arterials, but Beach is well above them, and is one of the few surface streets in the L.A. region that still deserve state highway status.

And yet Caltrans still turned over SR 39 to Buena Park south of I-5.

I always liked how FDOT handled relinquishment by having the old state highway become a county route of the same number.  Basically you could go on a long route west like FL 40 and have it become a CR for a portion of it's distance.  You'd think with all the lettered county routes in California that something like that would fit right in for route continuity.  It actually works really well with CA 59 and J59...the casual observer would only know that they were on "highway 59."

The difference is while Florida more often relinquishes state highways to county control, California more often relinquishes state highways to city control, so they won't use the county pentagon.

US 101 has never been completed "technically" in California. The Golden Gate Bridge is NOT part of the State Highway system and is not a part of Route 101 (or Route 1). So, it has a gap.

But does a US highway have to be state maintained to count? Can't it just be a city controlled street carrying the federal designation? We do it with business routes all the time.


A quick aside: I noticed the Los Angeles International Airport segment of Route 170 has finally been deleted from its definition, narrowing it down to Route 5 to Route 101.

Wait what? who maintains the ggb then? 
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: sdmichael on September 20, 2016, 06:22:38 PM
US 101 has never been completed "technically" in California. The Golden Gate Bridge is NOT part of the State Highway system and is not a part of Route 101 (or Route 1). So, it has a gap.

But does a US highway have to be state maintained to count? Can't it just be a city controlled street carrying the federal designation? We do it with business routes all the time.

A business route isn't always a State Highway. In fact, they rarely are and when they are, they are cosigned with an actual State route along at least a portion of the business route. So no, it can't just be a city controlled street carrying ANY designation, officially. There may be signage directing to the continuation, however. Do you think the State would want liability for a route they don't maintain?
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: sdmichael on September 20, 2016, 06:23:49 PM
Wait what? who maintains the ggb then?

The Golden Gate Bridge and Transit District maintains the bridge, as they always have. It remains as the only major bay crossing that is not under State control.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: coatimundi on September 20, 2016, 06:39:03 PM
Wait what? who maintains the ggb then?

The Golden Gate Bridge and Transit District maintains the bridge, as they always have. It remains as the only major bay crossing that is not under State control.

Right, the same people who run the ferries and a few North Bay bus lines. That's why the Golden Gate is the only bridge thus far to go cashless.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Max Rockatansky on September 20, 2016, 10:57:10 PM

I always liked how FDOT handled relinquishment by having the old state highway become a county route of the same number.  Basically you could go on a long route west like FL 40 and have it become a CR for a portion of it's distance.  You'd think with all the lettered county routes in California that something like that would fit right in for route continuity.  It actually works really well with CA 59 and J59...the casual observer would only know that they were on "highway 59."

The difference is while Florida more often relinquishes state highways to county control, California more often relinquishes state highways to city control, so they won't use the county pentagon.



Yeah but even in Florida you get County Routes traversing cities.  Orlando has a ton of them, CR 526 and CR 15 were among some of the most well known.  CR 15 is actually a County Route gap in state maintenance on FL 15.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Max Rockatansky on September 20, 2016, 11:13:43 PM
Everything related to the original alignment is on reply 38, I also checked out history on 43 and the LRNs before.  Basically the pre-64 alignment split off from the current one at 7th Ave west on East Lacey.  From there it took 7th Street through downtown Hanford, Garner Ave to West Lacey, West Lacey to 14th Ave south to Armona, 14th Ave to Front Street, Front Street west to Hanford-Armona Road, Hanford-Armona west to Lemoore and 19th 1/2 Ave, 19th 1/2 Ave south to Jackson, and Jackson Ave west to where it merges back into the post-64 route.

Basically 198 was all over the place and zig-zagged through all the little farm towns in Kings County.  I have a suspicion about Grangeville Road, Douty, to Hanford-Armona but the alignment isn't as clear pre-WWII.  I don't think any of the roads I listed above all still owned by Caltrans anymore asides from part of 19th 1/2 Ave since part of it is still 41.  But that's one hell of an upgrade that happened back in the 1960s, I imagine that the military presence was the primary instigator because nearby routes like 65/69/245, 216, 201, 137, and 63 still have the sudden 90 degree turns.

I didn't look at your linked post, but it's shown pretty clearly on the 1927 topo map, even though it's not actually signed as 198. It shows it continuing on Lacey all the way to Highway 41, skipping Lemoore, then south to Jackson. I can't really make out what you're describing, but that sounds a bit different. There's a '47 and a '57 online too, and they may show different routings. It's unfortunate that Thomas Brothers never found Hanford, even today, to be worth having an inset map for, so it'd be a bit harder to determine the routings within town just on that alone. I would trust Thomas Brothers more than the USGS, but maybe that's just me.

I think you're missing my point on the signage. In Hayward, it's completely been removed on all the highways except for 92, and that's only because the definition says that they should sign it. If you look at the Mission Boulevard intersection, it's a weird looking sign too, so it's very likely city, as is the 880 shield below it. 92's endpoint after that relinquishment is really odd though: still within Hayward but not at another state highway. Maybe there's an explanation for that, but it seems silly. Why continue it past I-880 at all?
Google Maps, and probably other online software, seem to not give a harry f*ck about whether or not the route number is correct. Maybe they figure that, as long as they're more accurate than Apple Maps, they can be okay at that low bar. But it creates an issue where, I'm sure, someone, somewhere is looking for the route number. It's just like, a few months ago, I drove some women to a yarn expo in Santa Clara (I went to explore and watch a movie), and one had printed directions that had the exit number on it. It just happened to be one of those places in the state that actually had exit numbers on the signs, but what if it hadn't been? I knew where to get off, but if she was driving, she would have just kept going, looking for that exit number. Same with the route numbers: "Exit at CA 238 and turn right". Google Maps doesn't know any better. Maybe that's why they're still on the BGS'?

Actually it's not too bad trying to find the 60s 198 route through Hanford and Kings County:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239528~5511852:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1963?sort=Date&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Date;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=54&trs=86

Basically if you compare the map to an overlay of what roads exist out in the field it's not too hard to determine the routing.  Granted it's not as good as something like an insert map of a city grid but there probably really wasn't much since Hanford had about 10,000 people back in 1960 and Lemoore was about 2,500.  So the route would have looked like this prior to 1964:

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Kit+Carson+Elementary+School,+9895+7th+Ave,+Hanford,+CA+93230/Hanford,+CA/Armona,+CA/Lemoore+Station,+CA/@36.2722448,-119.819807,11z/data=!4m61!4m60!1m15!1m1!1s0x8094db5d1ce5bcbf:0xa00177a92e45e524!2m2!1d-119.5823395!2d36.3297541!3m4!1m2!1d-119.5975287!2d36.3280118!3s0x8094db510d2a2e9f:0xbdac9384491ad1ff!3m4!1m2!1d-119.6206819!2d36.3279994!3s0x8094c4a75a9a139d:0xdb6684d278eb095e!1m15!1m1!1s0x8094c37b19af7a53:0x1b16a7e4c563f490!2m2!1d-119.6456844!2d36.3274502!3m4!1m2!1d-119.658193!2d36.3269358!3s0x8094c384ef50f909:0x2004a7f594a3b1c0!3m4!1m2!1d-119.7089886!2d36.3269517!3s0x8094c16888c6d01b:0x819b7665f10df733!1m20!1m1!1s0x8094c150c42f0faf:0x9f34088f112febd8!2m2!1d-119.7084642!2d36.3157833!3m4!1m2!1d-119.7320876!2d36.3135231!3s0x8094c123c4434939:0x7ac54f560eedcbe6!3m4!1m2!1d-119.8057537!2d36.3133953!3s0x8094bf76b78b1c4f:0x7f8024e4d6ca795e!3m4!1m2!1d-119.8146573!2d36.2549406!3s0x8094b8eac88f8a61:0x3033ea37ae3fc299!1m5!1m1!1s0x8094bc133bd44b8d:0x7ceb9974681ab113!2m2!1d-119.9075516!2d36.2624481!3e0?hl=en

I don't have the full background on when the 41 Expressway at Lemoore was built but it seems 19th 1/2 was cut off by it.

Yeah no, that's pretty strange to have it not cut back to I-880.  Are you talking about sign assemblies like this one?

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6697043,-122.0816977,3a,37.5y,208.4h,78.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1susWeTDmyj_EVYCsVTE7f4w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Actually I'm find the inverse to be a problem recently with the J Band of county routes.  For some reason Google has them still plotted out online like J41 but there isn't a single sign in the field anymore that I can find with the route number.  They still do a crappy job at get county and state routes correct in a lot of states.  Nothing replaces good field signage at the end of the day for navigation...it's not like all these techno maps are any more reliable than a good old paper map.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: coatimundi on September 21, 2016, 12:38:26 AM
Yes, that's the weird sign assembly. Another on Watkins Street:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6672074,-122.0806722,3a,75y,332.3h,82.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sm59UI8kdll6C2dsGRhmcAQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

There's another with 92 just a block away at D Street, but that erroneously (and totally unnecessarily) signs 185.
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.669908,-122.081902,3a,75y,178.44h,86.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRuH2qM-H__hpXnaNCW62dg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

What you linked is different from the '27 routing, and I think is different from the '47.
You mentioned WWII, but Lemoore NAS, built in 1961, would have been the big reason why the freeway/expressway was built at around that time, and why 198 was rerouted.

If only everyone could be like Monterey County, and consistently and clearly sign their numbered county routes.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Max Rockatansky on September 21, 2016, 12:51:48 AM
Right, the freeway configuration was completed in 1964 after the Naval Station opened up a couple years prior.  There was also Lemoore Army Airfield in WWII out there just south of the present Naval Base in addition to an supplemental field called "Summit Lake" where the current airfield is. The actual remains of the Army Airfield are just south of present 198 and is used on the crop lands:

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.2490051,-119.9448112,1155m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

http://military.wikia.com/wiki/Lemoore_Army_Air_Field

Apparently the land was eventually sold to the city of Lemoore who turned it over to the Navy in late 1950s.  So basically there was probably some influence that Airfield played during the second World War on the alignment of 198, like you said there was at least one change you saw for sure.

As for 92....is that a 12x18 in the first pic?  God that's about the ugliest shield in the entire state.  :-D
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: coatimundi on September 21, 2016, 02:40:07 AM
like you said there was at least one change you saw for sure.

No, the routing you linked is about the same routing on the topos (I'm not sure if you've reviewed these, but they're available online for free if you need the link). The exception was that Kit Carson Elementary was then called Joseph Stalin School for Tolerance and Proletariat Sciences. And that curve at the 41 junction wasn't built until a bit later.
If you're obsessive over the Hanford stuff, the '47 Hanford quad topo shows a different routing within town. That northern jog west of town wasn't yet constructed, so it turns north on another street in DowHan (what the kids call it nowadays) before continuing west.

Lemoore AAF was pretty far away from Lemoore and, from what I understand, was relatively insignificant in the broader spectrum. Even that link you posted says "was a dirt air field usable only in dry weather. It nevertheless was used by the AAF Western Flying Training Command as a processing and training field." The road to Coalinga was already there when the AAF was built, so there was no rerouting. Westhaven should be the quad for that area. Unless they were trying to hide it from the kaiser and kept it off maps...
I mean, these hastily-built and quickly-abandoned air fields were really common across the Southwest. Arizona has/had a ton of them. I don't think Lemoore's was ever intended to be a permanent facility, so it wouldn't have even prompted rerouting.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: TheStranger on September 21, 2016, 01:23:23 PM
There's another with 92 just a block away at D Street, but that erroneously (and totally unnecessarily) signs 185.
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.669908,-122.081902,3a,75y,178.44h,86.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRuH2qM-H__hpXnaNCW62dg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Regarding Hayward: I wonder if the relinquishments in that area relate to the reconfiguration of Mission, Foothill, and one of the lettered streets to create a one-way loop around the downtown. 

The 185 signage actually fits with the post-relinquishment route definition for the Hayward segment.  To quote cahighways:

Quote
(b) The relinquished former portion of Route 185 within the City of Hayward is not a state highway and is not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the relinquished former portion of Route 185, the City of Hayward shall maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 185 or to the state highway system, as applicable.

But this only highlights the absurdity of a legislative-based numbering system: Route 14U is signed, the continuation of Route 185 where it has been relinquished is signed in this example, yet Route 18 between Palmdale and US 395 is barely signed despite being rather definitively a major interregional state highway.

Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: coatimundi on September 21, 2016, 06:19:24 PM
The 185 signage actually fits with the post-relinquishment route definition for the Hayward segment.

So I don't know that I was totally clear on where that signage is, but it's on the traffic signal at D Street on the southbound-only Mission Boulevard. So there is no 185 south of there. Even when there was, it was for another block. I guess it could be referring to the loop you can take to reach 185 north, but it seems like it'd be more appropriate to sign 238 if you're going to sogn a route there.

But, yeah, the relinquishments were absolutely related to the Hayward Loop. Maybe Caltrans said, "No, that's stupid and we are not going to be a part of it."
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: TheStranger on September 21, 2016, 06:49:36 PM
The 185 signage actually fits with the post-relinquishment route definition for the Hayward segment.

So I don't know that I was totally clear on where that signage is, but it's on the traffic signal at D Street on the southbound-only Mission Boulevard. So there is no 185 south of there. Even when there was, it was for another block. I guess it could be referring to the loop you can take to reach 185 north, but it seems like it'd be more appropriate to sign 238 if you're going to sogn a route there.

Could argue that "185" (or at least pre-relinquishment 185) lasts one more block to 92/238!  Of course, that's not exactly navigationally useful, and also the opposite of the other extreme that CalTrans has shown in the past (signing the upcoming route before a route has ended, i.e. I-80 west in SF signed for US 101 from about the late 1980s onward, US 101 south from the 1980s to about 2007 signed for I-5 between the Four-Level and the East Los Angeles Interchange).

But, yeah, the relinquishments were absolutely related to the Hayward Loop. Maybe Caltrans said, "No, that's stupid and we are not going to be a part of it."


Similar thing happened in Sacramento when Route 160 was cut north of Freeport and south of the North Sacramento Freeway: the city wanted to be able to use their different maintenance standards for 15th and 16th Streets (as CalTrans standards require specific types of lighting masts, etc.).  As a result, the portion of F Street in Alkali Flat that once carried Route 160 south (and before that, US 99E and US 40 south) between 12th and 15th Streets  now has a small-diameter roundabout at 13th Street.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: emory on September 21, 2016, 09:07:02 PM
Yeah but even in Florida you get County Routes traversing cities.  Orlando has a ton of them, CR 526 and CR 15 were among some of the most well known.  CR 15 is actually a County Route gap in state maintenance on FL 15.

They traverse cities but are still county maintained, while in California major roads that traverse cities are often maintained by the city. Speaking of FL 15, a small stretch of it is actually maintained by the City of Orlando and is not officially part of FL 15.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Max Rockatansky on September 21, 2016, 10:32:08 PM
Yep and even that section of FL/CR 15 still has shields reflecting that the route exists.  Really it goes to the argument that poises the question; are routes signed for navigation or for displaying who maintains them?  Given that cities exist in counties personally I don't see why a city couldn't sign part of a county route they maintain or for that matter even part of a state highway.  The problem with California is that it always goes back to legislative definitions on everything which really can much things up.  Why not a scenario where the legislature decides what sections of highways are maintained at the state level and give Caltrans the authority to decide what roads can actually be "signed" as state highways?  I know that sounds an awful lot like the pre-64 LRN system but allow more flexibility to maintain signage on relinquished sections of state highways...or even expansion regardless of who maintains them.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: sparker on September 23, 2016, 04:07:23 PM
Yeah but even in Florida you get County Routes traversing cities.  Orlando has a ton of them, CR 526 and CR 15 were among some of the most well known.  CR 15 is actually a County Route gap in state maintenance on FL 15.

They traverse cities but are still county maintained, while in California major roads that traverse cities are often maintained by the city. Speaking of FL 15, a small stretch of it is actually maintained by the City of Orlando and is not officially part of FL 15.
Yep and even that section of FL/CR 15 still has shields reflecting that the route exists.  Really it goes to the argument that poises the question; are routes signed for navigation or for displaying who maintains them?  Given that cities exist in counties personally I don't see why a city couldn't sign part of a county route they maintain or for that matter even part of a state highway.  The problem with California is that it always goes back to legislative definitions on everything which really can much things up.  Why not a scenario where the legislature decides what sections of highways are maintained at the state level and give Caltrans the authority to decide what roads can actually be "signed" as state highways?  I know that sounds an awful lot like the pre-64 LRN system but allow more flexibility to maintain signage on relinquished sections of state highways...or even expansion regardless of who maintains them.
Had family & friends in and around Bennington, VT for many years; visited them at least on a yearly basis in the 1990's.  One thing I remember were small rectangular signs on VT 9 and US 7 at the town outskirts stating, essentially "end of state maintenance" and, conversely, "begin state maintenance", while the route shields were well-maintained, including the downtown 7/9 junction, in the town itself.  Considering that signage of local continuations of relinquished California state highways is at best sporadic -- as well as situational (it seems that some jurisdictions just don't want to "encourage" through traffic by maintaining reassurance shielding), similar "legalese" signage might be posted in CA (keeping Caltrans and local attorneys satisfied), with Caltrans actually posting reassurance/directional shields on the continuation routes per the actual relinquishment agreements, which are often ignored -- and unenforced.     
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: sdmichael on September 23, 2016, 05:22:55 PM
Yep and even that section of FL/CR 15 still has shields reflecting that the route exists.  Really it goes to the argument that poises the question; are routes signed for navigation or for displaying who maintains them?  Given that cities exist in counties personally I don't see why a city couldn't sign part of a county route they maintain or for that matter even part of a state highway.  The problem with California is that it always goes back to legislative definitions on everything which really can much things up.  Why not a scenario where the legislature decides what sections of highways are maintained at the state level and give Caltrans the authority to decide what roads can actually be "signed" as state highways?  I know that sounds an awful lot like the pre-64 LRN system but allow more flexibility to maintain signage on relinquished sections of state highways...or even expansion regardless of who maintains them.
Had family & friends in and around Bennington, VT for many years; visited them at least on a yearly basis in the 1990's.  One thing I remember were small rectangular signs on VT 9 and US 7 at the town outskirts stating, essentially "end of state maintenance" and, conversely, "begin state maintenance", while the route shields were well-maintained, including the downtown 7/9 junction, in the town itself.  Considering that signage of local continuations of relinquished California state highways is at best sporadic -- as well as situational (it seems that some jurisdictions just don't want to "encourage" through traffic by maintaining reassurance shielding), similar "legalese" signage might be posted in CA (keeping Caltrans and local attorneys satisfied), with Caltrans actually posting reassurance/directional shields on the continuation routes per the actual relinquishment agreements, which are often ignored -- and unenforced.     

No. In California, relinquished State Highways generally tend to be still signed as a "connection" for navigational purposes to the rest of the State Highway that remains. Local agencies are responsible for the maintenance of those relinquished sections, signage included. Why would Caltrans still pay for maintenance of a roadway they no longer have in their system?

Vermont laws/practices also don't apply in California. They may have entirely different rules regarding roadway maintenance, routing, and signage. So, not a very good comparison.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Max Rockatansky on September 23, 2016, 07:20:39 PM
Make the localities the relinquishment was handed to use the appropriate signage....never said Caltrans ought to pay for them.  I'm just throwing a hypothetical out there about the legislature deciding what routes are maintained on the state level and having Caltrans actually decide what is a "signed" highway regardless of who maintained it.  Granted that would require a change in state laws and would be sort of the pre-64 LRN days so it would never happen...but one can dream. But for what it's worth I still don't understand why a County Route couldn't be signed by a city or town.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: oscar on September 23, 2016, 08:50:31 PM
Make the localities the relinquishment was handed to use the appropriate signage....never said Caltrans ought to pay for them.

Already required, usually. But the requirement is too often ignored, or unenforced. Not that I favor it, but if Caltrans paid for proper signage, that increases the odds that it would be/stay posted.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: sdmichael on September 23, 2016, 08:54:47 PM
Make the localities the relinquishment was handed to use the appropriate signage....never said Caltrans ought to pay for them.  I'm just throwing a hypothetical out there about the legislature deciding what routes are maintained on the state level and having Caltrans actually decide what is a "signed" highway regardless of who maintained it.  Granted that would require a change in state laws and would be sort of the pre-64 LRN days so it would never happen...but one can dream. But for what it's worth I still don't understand why a County Route couldn't be signed by a city or town.

What is this "pre-64 LRN days" you speak of? State Highways were signed then and now. Some were unsigned, as are some still now. How is that different than today?
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: sparker on September 23, 2016, 10:28:06 PM
Yep and even that section of FL/CR 15 still has shields reflecting that the route exists.  Really it goes to the argument that poises the question; are routes signed for navigation or for displaying who maintains them?  Given that cities exist in counties personally I don't see why a city couldn't sign part of a county route they maintain or for that matter even part of a state highway.  The problem with California is that it always goes back to legislative definitions on everything which really can much things up.  Why not a scenario where the legislature decides what sections of highways are maintained at the state level and give Caltrans the authority to decide what roads can actually be "signed" as state highways?  I know that sounds an awful lot like the pre-64 LRN system but allow more flexibility to maintain signage on relinquished sections of state highways...or even expansion regardless of who maintains them.
Had family & friends in and around Bennington, VT for many years; visited them at least on a yearly basis in the 1990's.  One thing I remember were small rectangular signs on VT 9 and US 7 at the town outskirts stating, essentially "end of state maintenance" and, conversely, "begin state maintenance", while the route shields were well-maintained, including the downtown 7/9 junction, in the town itself.  Considering that signage of local continuations of relinquished California state highways is at best sporadic -- as well as situational (it seems that some jurisdictions just don't want to "encourage" through traffic by maintaining reassurance shielding), similar "legalese" signage might be posted in CA (keeping Caltrans and local attorneys satisfied), with Caltrans actually posting reassurance/directional shields on the continuation routes per the actual relinquishment agreements, which are often ignored -- and unenforced.     

No. In California, relinquished State Highways generally tend to be still signed as a "connection" for navigational purposes to the rest of the State Highway that remains. Local agencies are responsible for the maintenance of those relinquished sections, signage included. Why would Caltrans still pay for maintenance of a roadway they no longer have in their system?

Vermont laws/practices also don't apply in California. They may have entirely different rules regarding roadway maintenance, routing, and signage. So, not a very good comparison.
Make the localities the relinquishment was handed to use the appropriate signage....never said Caltrans ought to pay for them.

Already required, usually. But the requirement is too often ignored, or unenforced. Not that I favor it, but if Caltrans paid for proper signage, that increases the odds that it would be/stay posted.
Pretty much my idea to a "T".  I certainly don't envision Caltrans continuing to maintain relinquished routes -- just maintain some sort of real oversight regarding the signage of such routes -- something that clearly isn't being done consistently these days.  Even signage of currently commissioned routes (e.g., CA 238 south of CA 84) is often missing in action.  Fine for the locals, who don't need it, but for commercial traffic, area newbies, and even tourists (particularly older folks who eschew GPS), the presence of such signage is, well, "reassuring"! -- which is the whole idea in the first place!  It's becoming increasingly obvious that Caltrans is, either actively or passively, ignoring as much of their urban/suburban/exurban surface components as they possibly can.  Whether this is a deliberate internal policy or simply a longstanding reshuffling of priorities is a matter of conjecture (if jroush wishes to chime in on this, an insider view would be welcome!). 

And yes, I do realize Vermont is indeed different than California -- but the situation regarding signage is similar -- one state is doing the jurisdictional dance well, while the other isn't.  Granted, there might be some additional obstacles found in once place versus the other, but these obstacles are addressable; there's no need for them to ossify until they become permanent blockages.  I have merely suggested an approach to the problem -- but some folks either don't see a problem or have adopted a hyper-cynical set of viewpoints that dismiss the possibility of any policy -- or real/manifested -- alterations.  Yes, there exists a status quo regarding the issues discussed in this thread -- but these are simply policies, largely internal -- not the revealed word of God!  And as such, these indicators of the status quo don't really need apologists.  Sometimes shaking things up a bit -- throwing out ideas not previously considered -- can be a positive thing.  IMO, deference to "a priori" litanies and concepts is at least counterproductive and an obstacle to effectuality -- and at worst contributory to the suppression of open discourse.   Just because a situation exists doesn't mean that it has the right to do so permanently!     
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Max Rockatansky on September 23, 2016, 10:50:19 PM
Make the localities the relinquishment was handed to use the appropriate signage....never said Caltrans ought to pay for them.  I'm just throwing a hypothetical out there about the legislature deciding what routes are maintained on the state level and having Caltrans actually decide what is a "signed" highway regardless of who maintained it.  Granted that would require a change in state laws and would be sort of the pre-64 LRN days so it would never happen...but one can dream. But for what it's worth I still don't understand why a County Route couldn't be signed by a city or town.

What is this "pre-64 LRN days" you speak of? State Highways were signed then and now. Some were unsigned, as are some still now. How is that different than today?

Pre-Renumbering of the LRNs to match the signage.  Is it not true that the Divisions of Highways could act on their own authority to designate routes before everything was switched over the current legislative system?  Again...total hypothetical, it would require a change of approach in terms of routes being completely navigational in regards to signage.  It's not a problem exclusive to state highways, there are countless lettered county routes that I can think of that aren't signed at all.

Yep and even that section of FL/CR 15 still has shields reflecting that the route exists.  Really it goes to the argument that poises the question; are routes signed for navigation or for displaying who maintains them?  Given that cities exist in counties personally I don't see why a city couldn't sign part of a county route they maintain or for that matter even part of a state highway.  The problem with California is that it always goes back to legislative definitions on everything which really can much things up.  Why not a scenario where the legislature decides what sections of highways are maintained at the state level and give Caltrans the authority to decide what roads can actually be "signed" as state highways?  I know that sounds an awful lot like the pre-64 LRN system but allow more flexibility to maintain signage on relinquished sections of state highways...or even expansion regardless of who maintains them.
Had family & friends in and around Bennington, VT for many years; visited them at least on a yearly basis in the 1990's.  One thing I remember were small rectangular signs on VT 9 and US 7 at the town outskirts stating, essentially "end of state maintenance" and, conversely, "begin state maintenance", while the route shields were well-maintained, including the downtown 7/9 junction, in the town itself.  Considering that signage of local continuations of relinquished California state highways is at best sporadic -- as well as situational (it seems that some jurisdictions just don't want to "encourage" through traffic by maintaining reassurance shielding), similar "legalese" signage might be posted in CA (keeping Caltrans and local attorneys satisfied), with Caltrans actually posting reassurance/directional shields on the continuation routes per the actual relinquishment agreements, which are often ignored -- and unenforced.     

No. In California, relinquished State Highways generally tend to be still signed as a "connection" for navigational purposes to the rest of the State Highway that remains. Local agencies are responsible for the maintenance of those relinquished sections, signage included. Why would Caltrans still pay for maintenance of a roadway they no longer have in their system?

Vermont laws/practices also don't apply in California. They may have entirely different rules regarding roadway maintenance, routing, and signage. So, not a very good comparison.
Make the localities the relinquishment was handed to use the appropriate signage....never said Caltrans ought to pay for them.

Already required, usually. But the requirement is too often ignored, or unenforced. Not that I favor it, but if Caltrans paid for proper signage, that increases the odds that it would be/stay posted.
Pretty much my idea to a "T".  I certainly don't envision Caltrans continuing to maintain relinquished routes -- just maintain some sort of real oversight regarding the signage of such routes -- something that clearly isn't being done consistently these days.  Even signage of currently commissioned routes (e.g., CA 238 south of CA 84) is often missing in action.  Fine for the locals, who don't need it, but for commercial traffic, area newbies, and even tourists (particularly older folks who eschew GPS), the presence of such signage is, well, "reassuring"! -- which is the whole idea in the first place!  It's becoming increasingly obvious that Caltrans is, either actively or passively, ignoring as much of their urban/suburban/exurban surface components as they possibly can.  Whether this is a deliberate internal policy or simply a longstanding reshuffling of priorities is a matter of conjecture (if jroush wishes to chime in on this, an insider view would be welcome!). 

And yes, I do realize Vermont is indeed different than California -- but the situation regarding signage is similar -- one state is doing the jurisdictional dance well, while the other isn't.  Granted, there might be some additional obstacles found in once place versus the other, but these obstacles are addressable; there's no need for them to ossify until they become permanent blockages.  I have merely suggested an approach to the problem -- but some folks either don't see a problem or have adopted a hyper-cynical set of viewpoints that dismiss the possibility of any policy -- or real/manifested -- alterations.  Yes, there exists a status quo regarding the issues discussed in this thread -- but these are simply policies, largely internal -- not the revealed word of God!  And as such, these indicators of the status quo don't really need apologists.  Sometimes shaking things up a bit -- throwing out ideas not previously considered -- can be a positive thing.  IMO, deference to "a priori" litanies and concepts is at least counterproductive and an obstacle to effectuality -- and at worst contributory to the suppression of open discourse.   Just because a situation exists doesn't mean that it has the right to do so permanently!     

Thank god someone else doesn't think the status quo is some sort of "absolute."  :-D
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: sdmichael on September 24, 2016, 11:06:54 AM
I think you think this change in 1964 was more than it was. All that was done was to align the legislative routes with the sign routes. LRN 4 became Sign Route 99. LRN 26 became Sign Route 10 (I-10) and so on. Routes were still defined by the legislature then as they are now.

You still have not clarified this idea. You seem to want local agencies to start signing their own State Highways, yet have them NOT be State Highways. That would seem to defeat the purpose of having a State Highway. Caltrans, whether we like it or not, is divesting itself of quite a few of the roadways they acquired around 1935 when the counties/cities could not afford to maintain them. Now they want them back. Seems fair enough to me.

Yes, signage could be better for both County and State routes. Part of it could simply be that Caltrans or the County do not know the signs are missing. How about informing them of this instead of trying to create some new system?
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Max Rockatansky on September 24, 2016, 11:31:11 AM
Because this is all really just banter and I don't have much expectation of change.  Nor do I have the incentive considering it's only been five years since I've been back here and I don't think it will be many more years until the next transfer out comes through.  So with that in mind, I rather just enjoy what I can out on the road and get my personal bucket list done of all the secondary stuff this state has to offer rather than trying to get Caltrans or some County agency with a limited budget on the line.  Besides when I have tried with Caltrans via email on when I was here originally usually it just disappeared into a black hole.  That's probably because they handle so many inquiries but it was always nice to get actual answers or an acknowledgement that they received it at all.  BUT.....that was years ago, so who's to say there could be a better response to that kind of thing?

I just enjoy the discussion that's all, I feel like I'm ticking everyone off by suggesting maybe something new in regards to Caltrans.  But....one could say that ever since Caltrans was created (I know it was 1972) that the state's interest in roadways has declined massively.  Really you throw the EPA Act on top of everything and a great deal of the major projects that were "supposedly" going to happen have been abandoned.  I don't have a problem with route relinquishment, especially in urban corridors where there are usually freeways that serve the function that a surface highway used to.  The problem for me is when you have gapped routes with no signage in between, why not either just remove all the signs or continue to sign the route until it is completely relinquished?  That doesn't have to be Caltrans that has to do it on the relinquished portions, a county or city provided they have the budget can post a couple reassurance signs.  Some do...some don't, it's just inconsistent.

Now with the county routes though, I think it's more a function of what county is doing the signage.  For example; Mariposa County is excellent at getting County Route signage up while others like Tulare almost never have them at all. 
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: sparker on September 24, 2016, 03:06:03 PM
It's not so much the lack of continuation/reassurance signage on relinquished routes, it's the inconsistency (likely a product of the individual Caltrans district's priorities) with which such signage is deployed.  Language in the various relinquishment agreements specify that signage be maintained (ostensibly by the local jurisdiction to whom the route was relinquished) -- it would seem to be in the best interest of all concerned to actually do so -- to provide a through route for regional traffic passing through the relinquished portion of the route, and by doing so enhance the potential for commerce (and sales tax $$) along that route.  That being said, I can see the point in not signing portions that have no continuation value (such as former CA 2 west of I-405 in Santa Monica; if one wants to delineate the route, simply place "Historic US 66" signs along the former alignment -- that would likely be more useful than green CA 2 shields).  But sections like any or all portions of CA 1 in the greater L.A. area would be appropriate for full signage regardless of facility maintenance differences -- providing a referential "spine" for tourists and/or commercial traffic in the beach cities. 
Thank god someone else doesn't think the status quo is some sort of "absolute."  :-D
And we thank you for your support!  We "radical utilitarians" (not an oxymoron!) occasionally need to rail against the blatantly stupid and willfully ignorant!  On that note, there's a funny situation up here in San Jose:  While CA 82 legally terminates at the I-880/The Alameda interchange near the Santa Clara city line, there is a lone "straggler " CA 82 shield southbound (actually, eastward) on The Alameda a few blocks east of Race Street -- well within the relinquished portion -- and it's not an old  shield -- it's a 3d shield with "82" centered within -- but it's the only one anywhere along the relinquished route (although the BGS's on CA 87 reference it on the San Carlos Ave. exits).  Given the lack of "end" signage at the 880/82 junction, this seems like the feeblest attempt yet to effect continuation signage over a former alignment. 
My solution (and I've already contacted the City of San Jose as well as Caltrans District 4 about this) is to install "Historic US 101" signage along most of the relinquished route (except for the late-70's "detour" away from downtown) rather than CA 82 signs -- seeing that US 101, pre '64, utilized these surface streets. 
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: sdmichael on September 24, 2016, 03:30:04 PM
TL:DR - what is it you're looking for? Better signage? Contact Caltrans. Are you also calling those that disagree blatantly stupid or willfully ignorant? If so, that ends now. Blatant condescension is also inappropriate.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: TheStranger on September 24, 2016, 03:42:21 PM
On that note, there's a funny situation up here in San Jose:  While CA 82 legally terminates at the I-880/The Alameda interchange near the Santa Clara city line, there is a lone "straggler " CA 82 shield southbound (actually, eastward) on The Alameda a few blocks east of Race Street -- well within the relinquished portion -- and it's not an old  shield -- it's a 3d shield with "82" centered within -- but it's the only one anywhere along the relinquished route (although the BGS's on CA 87 reference it on the San Carlos Ave. exits).  Given the lack of "end" signage at the 880/82 junction, this seems like the feeblest attempt yet to effect continuation signage over a former alignment. 

Route 82 is still signed off of Route 87 as well!  (Similarly, Route 91 is signed off of Interstate 405 AND shields remain on the route west of I-110, even though that is not officially a state highway anymore.  Still a pretty useful connector to Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach though)

I'm just of the mind that route signing really should exist for the navigational benefit of the public (so on the same page with you and Max for this)

So if a route becomes discontinuous, they shouldn't both have the same number.  Other states do have split routes like this but I've never seen this as rational - if a highway is signed for a certain number, the expectation should be that signage goes from Point A to Point B with no breaks.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: myosh_tino on September 24, 2016, 05:44:03 PM
On that note, there's a funny situation up here in San Jose:  While CA 82 legally terminates at the I-880/The Alameda interchange near the Santa Clara city line, there is a lone "straggler " CA 82 shield southbound (actually, eastward) on The Alameda a few blocks east of Race Street -- well within the relinquished portion -- and it's not an old  shield -- it's a 3d shield with "82" centered within -- but it's the only one anywhere along the relinquished route (although the BGS's on CA 87 reference it on the San Carlos Ave. exits).  Given the lack of "end" signage at the 880/82 junction, this seems like the feeblest attempt yet to effect continuation signage over a former alignment.

In this case, there shouldn't be any "continuation signage" because Route 82 ends at I-880.  Route 82 is not discontinuous because there is no southern continuation.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: sparker on September 24, 2016, 09:30:46 PM
TL:DR - what is it you're looking for? Better signage? Contact Caltrans. Are you also calling those that disagree blatantly stupid or willfully ignorant? If so, that ends now. Blatant condescension is also inappropriate.
Calm down!  I'm referring to public agencies that seem to be blissfully ignorant of the fact that routes are not being signed despite the legal obligation to do so.  I'm certainly not being condescending to any posters to this or any thread; my ire and disapproval, such as it is, is directed to those who are in a position to make a difference.  I'll always be open to other viewpoints -- and always hoping that my own are respected and not in & of themselves subject to condescending replies by others (which has not always been the case!).  Except for the frivolity that often appears in the fictional section, all posts and posters have value -- even the ones that counter one's own opinion or conclusions.  When I started posting earlier this year, it was with the assumption that a thick skin is needed to ward off the expected thrown brickbats; a couple of minor bruises later, no major damage has occurred -- I intend to be around for a while!     
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Occidental Tourist on September 24, 2016, 10:18:55 PM
I agree with Sparker.  It's not disrespectful to expect local governments or state governments to perform the services they are allocated tax revenue to perform or for citizens to express consternation when they don't.  The express terms of relinquishment agreements include maintenance of signs for the motoring public. Maintenance of those signs is also codified.  If the local governments aren't fulfilling the terms of their relinquishment agreements, Caltrans should be seeking to enforce them.  On many routes, they are not.  Caltrans deserves the criticism they are getting in this thread for not holding those local governments to those agreements.

As for contacting Caltrans ourselves, I've contacted District 12 twice about signing issues, and have never gotten the courtesy of an acknowledgement or a response much less seeing the error fixed.  I've represented local government agencies for years, and I've come to learn that for many, responsiveness to the public is a low priority.  My experiences with the local Caltrans office is consistent with that.

On this board, a Caltrans employee contacted District 7 about major errors on a sign replacement contract last year and only got them to acknowledge and fix about a third of the issues identified.  If a Caltrans employee can only get a middling response, why would anyone here take the admonishment to contact Caltrans seriously?
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: sdmichael on September 24, 2016, 10:41:07 PM
Here is the context:

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 23, 2016, 10:50:19 PM
Thank god someone else doesn't think the status quo is some sort of "absolute."  :-D

Quote from: Sparker
And we thank you for your support!  We "radical utilitarians" (not an oxymoron!) occasionally need to rail against the blatantly stupid and willfully ignorant!

None of which states who the "blatantly stupid and willfully ignorant" is directed toward. Sparkers posts, at times, have come off as rather condescending and "word of God", something I have not appreciated. He may have knowledge of things, but his knowledge is not the end-all-be-all of knowledge, nor is my own. If you wish to call out someone or something as "blatantly stupid and willfully ignorant", make sure you state who or what that is directed toward. From the context of the conversation previous, it seemed directed to not only myself but others posting, something which is NOT warranted nor tolerated.

The bulk of this "lack of signage" issue most likely also stems from a lack of knowledge by the agencies involved. That is why there are websites devoted to letting them know of maintenance issues. They, being the agencies involved, have quite a bit of infrastructure to maintain. They may not always be aware of their deficiencies. We, as the public, can help them by informing them directly, not complaining on some random Internet site which is not connected to them.

The government, and the agencies of the government, aren't some mythical being. They are made up of the same people as you and I. They also represent us and the agencies we speak of here are also quite willing to listen to us. Got a problem with the signage, let them know. I've had whole new signs posted as a result of e-mails to Caltrans. I may well be the one responsible for getting advanced signage for I-210 on I-5 at the SR-14 interchange. I have had two stop signs posted and other signage posted, simply from e-mails. Who am I? Just a member of the public. I have no "sway" other than that.

So no, don't tell me to "calm down".
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Max Rockatansky on September 24, 2016, 10:50:11 PM
I've been watching this thread pretty much all day to see where it goes.  Basically my conclusion is that things just went to hell over a whole bunch of misunderstandings.  For what it's worth...I'm going to bow out of this one while the getting is good since this is going somewhere I'm not interested in taking things.  I'll say this though, I didn't mean any offense by any opinions nor comments I may have posted here.  If something I said was taken out of context as somehow insulting that isn't what I intended.  So with that in mind....moving on the next thread, I think cahighwaysguy said it best when he said "we all share this hobby" on a recent thread of his.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: andy3175 on September 25, 2016, 12:13:27 AM
I agree that there are misunderstandings as I read through this thread. My take, for what it's worth, is that there should be standards on signage related to signed state, county, and business routes regardless of the controlling jurisdiction. But I will now give a whole bunch of reasons why that is likely impractical and probably infeasible, even if I think that is a desirable outcome.

Since each jurisdiction (city, state, county) operates independently, it is difficult to achieve a level of consistency across all of them. So, I don't know how signage consistency can be achieved if there is no overarching entity that controls and regulates all of them on this matter.

County routes can be signed by the state, county, or city. Examples:

- CR S16 is signed from SR 76 in Pala on the mainline of SR 76. This is maintained by the state.
- CR S5 is signed in Rancho Bernardo by the city of San Diego and in Poway by the city of Poway. The county only maintains signage on its segment outside of city limits.
- CR S6 is signed in Escondido by the city of Escondido and in Valley Center by San Diego County. There are signs on Valley Parkway that announce where city maintenance ends and county maintenance begins, but the S signage is consistent all along this route.

Some California cities and counties have decided to stop maintaining signage for various signed routes for one of any number of reasons, such as obsolescence (Business 8 along El Cajon Blvd in San Diego and La Mesa is a route that has not been the "through" route to San Diego since construction of Interstate 8 in the 1960s and no longer serves as a reasonable alternative to the freeway), budget priorities (if a city or county is having difficulty making budget ends meet, it will stop performing certain maintenance tasks if there are no impacts on user safety; this might be why Tulare no longer signs or maintains any county route marker signage), stigma associated with the route (some designations may imply a lesser economic status for a given area or corridor that is to be redeveloped or given significant improvements, so in those cases, route markers may be removed, such as seen on segments of Business 205 in Tracy given streetscape improvements), and blissful ignorance and/or willful disregard for previously approved designations (in cases where a given route is no longer signed through a given jurisdiction, it may drop the route markers altogether especially if no one in a role of authority will tell them otherwise; for example, I challenge anyone to find SR 1 markers running through Dana Point other than the "alternate" route created by the elimination of a one-way couplet near downtown).

In my opinion, Caltrans is trying to prune back the system since its budget has been steadily losing funding (in large part due to the unchanged gas tax rate) and also because cities and counties want the urban routes back to make them friendlier for bicycles and pedestrians and public transit, which are noble goals that do not always comply with the state's mission for these roads (although the state is getting better). I can foresee a future where most street-level routes that pass through urban areas are given back to the various cities (and in some cases counties) through which those routes travel. Recent changes here in San Diego include removal of SR 209 and 274 (both legislatively decommissioned in 2001 and signage removed slowly over the span of 15 years, which 209 and 274 shields mostly gone within the last 3-4 years). I can see where additional relinquishments may include removal of SR 282, SR 75 through southern San Diego and Imperial Beach (and maybe Coronado), the remainder of SR 54 north of SR 94, and even SR 78 through Escondido (perhaps with the clause about keeping signage to direct through traffic).

Those are just my thoughts and certainly are not the way its going to be. I noted that some have been successful in contacting Caltrans and others have not. Given that I have not had much success, what is the best way to contact Caltrans? When I've contacted my local office (District 11) to report issues via email, I have received no response. The web link to the contact page is http://www.dot.ca.gov/contactus.html. Does email remain the best way, or is there a better way?
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Quillz on September 25, 2016, 07:00:53 PM
I've posted this ad nauseum by now, but I'll post it again: on paper, the only real issue I've ever had with the CA highway system is routes that terminate at arbitrary points like city limits, even more so if the route then begins again on the other side of the city limits (CA-90 comes to mind). The segment in between should still be signed as it were a state highway, even if it's only maintained locally. *If* this was done consistently, I'd have no issues with how things are now.

Navigation over legality, I say.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: silverback1065 on September 26, 2016, 10:46:29 AM
I've posted this ad nauseum by now, but I'll post it again: on paper, the only real issue I've ever had with the CA highway system is routes that terminate at arbitrary points like city limits, even more so if the route then begins again on the other side of the city limits (CA-90 comes to mind). The segment in between should still be signed as it were a state highway, even if it's only maintained locally. *If* this was done consistently, I'd have no issues with how things are now.

Navigation over legality, I say.

you'd love indiana's highways. they're all kinds of fucked up around cities.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: sparker on September 26, 2016, 08:55:02 PM
None of which states who the "blatantly stupid and willfully ignorant" is directed toward. Sparkers posts, at times, have come off as rather condescending and "word of God", something I have not appreciated. He may have knowledge of things, but his knowledge is not the end-all-be-all of knowledge, nor is my own. If you wish to call out someone or something as "blatantly stupid and willfully ignorant", make sure you state who or what that is directed toward. From the context of the conversation previous, it seemed directed to not only myself but others posting, something which is NOT warranted nor tolerated.

So no, don't tell me to "calm down".
Sorry for any misunderstanding; I might have clarified the direction of my admittedly snarky statement -- I have never had, nor will have, the intention of vilifying or dismissing any other posters, particularly those who elucidate valid points.  And if any of you out there in the forum think my posts occasionally come off as "word of God", that is not by intent -- beyond the fact that my background is in public policy analysis, and this is the type of writing used in research and/or position papers, of which I've written and submitted untold numbers, many to the agencies cited in various threads, and many to public and/or private entities seeking to have their particular projects placed on an agenda somewhere (and most of which are confidential!).  So if I drone on, crossing all the T's and dotting all the I's as necessary, please bear with me -- it's "what I do"! 

Having dealt with public agencies over the past three decades or so, I certainly understand their occasional lapses of attention -- particularly when they get so much input from so many sources -- that they find it hard to address every issue that comes before them, resulting in many things for which they have ultimate responsibility falling through the cracks.  Like everyone in the public sector, they have to prioritize -- that's a given!  But it seems that if an agency consistently "falls down" in regards to a particular issue,  as Caltrans seems to do with signage these days (even on extant state facilities), and acknowledgement of such seems not to be forthcoming, then forums such as this, albeit not an official conduit, can serve as a collection point for examples and instances, so those posters in a localized position to lodge complaints or observations can not only cite examples particularly pertinent to them, but also bolster their arguments by citing examples in other locations where similar discrepancies are found. 

I'm basically a "glass-half-full" kind of guy -- if, in my analysis,  something can be done to improve a situation, I'd rather voice that viewpoint rather than take a more negative or cynical approach.  That's not going to change.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: coatimundi on September 27, 2016, 06:34:42 PM
Off-topic, but I should say that I personally appreciate any unsolicited information. Whether or not I am personally aware or unaware of what's being written is irrelevant in a public forum setting, because someone else may not know it. If you've ever seen the stats for boards like these - and maybe this one is very different - there are a lot of lurkers out there. A lot of people just like to read. And nothing in here is reserved for the well-informed in terms of any subject matter, from my perspective. As long as the topics stay on the subject of roads, any level of specificity or generality is, IMHO, totally acceptable. I think even a question like "What routes does Interstate 5 intersect in California?" is completely legitimate, even if it just brings a link to the Wikipedia page that shows the information.
I should also add that this idea that one should not be complaining about something in lieu of contacting a responsible agency is, I think, a bit ridiculous. I mean, it's just a discussion topic. I appreciate coming in here and seeing content. If everyone contacted Caltrans about what irks them or confuses them, then there would be very little content, I would think.

I say, Sparker, please keep it up. I enjoy your posts, and I don't think I'm alone on that. Just a bit of positivity.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: sdmichael on September 27, 2016, 07:10:28 PM
Those are just my thoughts and certainly are not the way its going to be. I noted that some have been successful in contacting Caltrans and others have not. Given that I have not had much success, what is the best way to contact Caltrans? When I've contacted my local office (District 11) to report issues via email, I have received no response. The web link to the contact page is http://www.dot.ca.gov/contactus.html. Does email remain the best way, or is there a better way?

This is a page I posted on my site a while back to assist others in contacting various local agencies -

http://socalregion.com/highways/socal-highway-resources/ (http://socalregion.com/highways/socal-highway-resources/)

If it is a city you need to contact - here is a list of all the incorporated cities and counties in Southern California -

http://socalregion.com/civic-information/ (http://socalregion.com/civic-information/)

While it focuses on Southern California (the focus of my site), it does have contacts for Caltrans, a statewide agency. Through those links I have been able to get signage reposted (such as Grand Army of the Republic Highway signs that went missing), potholes filled, new signs added, signs modified, stop signs added, striping corrected, curbing painted, parking spots added/removed, traffic signals adjusted, brush cleared, streets cleaned, and much more. All it takes is an e-mail. One of my most recent projects is to get the signage on SB State 163 modified at I-8 where there is a sign stating "South 163 Left Lanes". I'm working to make it "Left 2 Lanes" instead, similar to a sign further south, to better assist motorists through that interchange. I may well have been the one to have advanced signage added for I-210 on I-5 where the 5 NB to 14 NB ramp goes over the 5. You'd be amazed what you can accomplish.

Personally, I'd rather be getting things done than complaining about how "bad" it is on a site that can do nothing about it. Contacting the proper agency can get things done. Sometimes being persistent is necessary, sometimes it is a simple as one e-mail. It is also far easier and better than trying to come up with some extra system to satisfy ... whatever that idea was. If signage is lacking due to a relinquishment, it really doesn't serve the public nor the agencies involved to repost signs for a route that no longer exists. I'd rather see my tax dollars go toward something that does exist.

So, if there is missing signage, contact the proper agency and get it fixed. It is really that simple.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Occidental Tourist on September 28, 2016, 01:51:59 AM
So, if there is missing signage, contact the proper agency and get it fixed. It is really that simple.

Except, as I and many others have attested, we've tried and it doesn't work.  So repeating a platitude in response to others describing actual experiences that have been futile tends to be polarizing at best and dismissive at worst.  Although I rarely like to engage in criticisms of other posters, I've found this remark of yours and past remarks on this subject to be increasingly intemperate.

Plus, there's also a greater philosophical question being ignored: We who have the interest and the knowledge to post observations on this board about the obligations of state and local governments to provide helpful signage to the motoring public are statistically insignificant in terms of the total citizenry who relies upon or benefits from well-designed and implemented highway signage.  Isn't there something fundamentally wrong if the system has degraded to a point where it requires a self-selected and unusually interested few just to get government to perform a basic public task?
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: sdmichael on September 28, 2016, 02:55:42 AM
How is it then, if it is so difficult, have I been able to do what I've done with simple e-mails and forms? You can just throw your hands up and say it doesn't work, or you can try again (or harder). I don't expect ANY agency to have constant knowledge of all their signs or infrastructure. Some agencies are easier to deal with than others.

How is it a "self-selected and unusually interested few"? All of the sites I have linked to are public knowledge and easy to access. Some agencies have even taken to creating phone apps, such as San Diego. Los Angeles has a very good site with a map describing the status of all their requests. Caltrans has responded to most of my requests with a good amount of success at that. I've managed to get TWO stop signs installed just through two e-mails/forms in the city of San Diego. I'm not special, just a member of the public. I didn't have to go through anything special for them. I've had two signs replaced in the past week as well.

I'm not, however, going to give in to the fatalist or cynical attitude that the agencies are just simply unwilling and difficult to deal with. The system hasn't degraded. It is even easier than before to contact these agencies to get something fixed. These agencies are willing to help, it is their job to do so. I've dealt with quite a few people in those agencies and all have been quite helpful. So yeah, I will keep repeating that it is possible to get results and to go through the proper channels to get those results instead of complaining about how "bad" it is. It is that simple.

Caltrans Report a Maintenance Problem http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/maint/msrsubmit/ (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/maint/msrsubmit/) - Use to get potholes filled, signs replaced, etc
Caltrans Report a Traffic or Work Zone Problem  http://www.dot.ca.gov/paffairs/pioform.html (http://www.dot.ca.gov/paffairs/pioform.html) - Use to get signs installed, striping changed, etc.

I've had great success with both those sites. Both are sites I have linked on my website in order to help the general public.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: andy3175 on September 29, 2016, 12:02:58 AM
Caltrans Report a Maintenance Problem http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/maint/msrsubmit/ (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/maint/msrsubmit/) - Use to get potholes filled, signs replaced, etc
Caltrans Report a Traffic or Work Zone Problem  http://www.dot.ca.gov/paffairs/pioform.html (http://www.dot.ca.gov/paffairs/pioform.html) - Use to get signs installed, striping changed, etc.

I've had no problem with the local jurisdictions and municipalities, just Caltrans. I will try these two links. I have a couple of suggestions I plan to send their way. We'll see if I can get traction similar to that sdmichael got.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Occidental Tourist on September 29, 2016, 06:43:21 PM
I'm not going to belabor the point any longer of arguing with you over the ease or lack thereof of getting Caltrans to respond to complaints about signing issues.  I (and others) will say my experiences affirm they are non-responsive, and you will continue to counter with your experience that they are very responsive.  Short of each side repeatedly calling the other a liar, we won't convince you any more than you will convince us.  It's a shame though, because I have admired you for your SCV roadpage since I began visiting it in the late 90's, and I am extremely surprised with how confrontational and dismissive you've been with other posters on this particular topic, even in other threads (e.g., the 210, 14, 5 interchange thread).  Because we're not going to convince each other, unfortunately I'll leave this argument with the trite but applicable "agree to disagree."

How is it a "self-selected and unusually interested few"? All of the sites I have linked to are public knowledge and easy to access. Some agencies have even taken to creating phone apps, such as San Diego. Los Angeles has a very good site with a map describing the status of all their requests.

To clarify, most of the motoring public has no clue about the intricacies of signing requirements.  Many are completely unaware of the errors that are present, and do not have the interest that the hobbyists of this board do with either informing the responsible agencies or seeing those errors corrected.  With regard to the topic of this thread, I imagine the closest that most people come to being aware that many relinquished portions of highways are not being signed by local jurisdictions is the rare and random moment when signage for a highway disappears and the motorist thinks "where did that highway go?"  But in those rare instances, I can't imagine any motorist other than a hobbyist being motivated enough to then contact Caltrans or the local jurisdiction to complain about the missing signage.  That was the "self-selected and unusually interested few" to which I was referring.  Only roadgeeks have the background to understand that there's signage missing that should be reported.  The rest of the motoring public is going to be unaware and otherwise occupied to fulfill any reporting role.

Thus, I don't think it's realistic to believe that the vast majority of the public that uses California's highways are going to use any public agency reporting link to report what they might not even know are problems, e.g., I don't expect someone traveling from La Habra to Pico Rivera who encounters missing signage on a portions SR-72 to be inclined to or take the time to report that condition to either the local jurisdiction or Caltrans.  And thus I don’t believe it’s a reliable or appropriate public policy for our baseline approach to ensuring proper signage or maintenance will be “well, the public will report it if there’s a problem.”  Agencies should have the resources budgeted to do spot checks of these matters.  How much does it cost to have a Caltrans employee drive once a year down a designated highway and note the areas where local jurisdictions aren’t maintaining signage as they should under relinquishment agreements?  In my mind, it shouldn’t be prohibitively expensive, and as I’ve watched services in this state degrade over thirty years in other areas, I’d like to try to hold the state government agency that’s responsible for maintaining roads to at least a minimal standard of preemptively ensuring basic signage required under law and contract is present on those roadways.
                        
Adopting a philosophy of “squeaky wheel gets the grease” for infrastructure maintenance is a somewhat nihilistic view of what government should to provide to its citizens.  I have yet to succumb to it, but I'm getting there.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: djsekani on September 29, 2016, 06:47:22 PM
How is it then, if it is so difficult, have I been able to do what I've done with simple e-mails and forms? You can just throw your hands up and say it doesn't work, or you can try again (or harder). I don't expect ANY agency to have constant knowledge of all their signs or infrastructure. Some agencies are easier to deal with than others.

How is it a "self-selected and unusually interested few"? All of the sites I have linked to are public knowledge and easy to access. Some agencies have even taken to creating phone apps, such as San Diego. Los Angeles has a very good site with a map describing the status of all their requests. Caltrans has responded to most of my requests with a good amount of success at that. I've managed to get TWO stop signs installed just through two e-mails/forms in the city of San Diego. I'm not special, just a member of the public. I didn't have to go through anything special for them. I've had two signs replaced in the past week as well.

I'm not, however, going to give in to the fatalist or cynical attitude that the agencies are just simply unwilling and difficult to deal with. The system hasn't degraded. It is even easier than before to contact these agencies to get something fixed. These agencies are willing to help, it is their job to do so. I've dealt with quite a few people in those agencies and all have been quite helpful. So yeah, I will keep repeating that it is possible to get results and to go through the proper channels to get those results instead of complaining about how "bad" it is. It is that simple.

Caltrans Report a Maintenance Problem http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/maint/msrsubmit/ (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/maint/msrsubmit/) - Use to get potholes filled, signs replaced, etc
Caltrans Report a Traffic or Work Zone Problem  http://www.dot.ca.gov/paffairs/pioform.html (http://www.dot.ca.gov/paffairs/pioform.html) - Use to get signs installed, striping changed, etc.

I've had great success with both those sites. Both are sites I have linked on my website in order to help the general public.

It could also be that District 11 is more responsive (or better funded) than some of the other ones. I tried to contact Caltrans in District 8 a few years ago about a broken traffic signal and got bounced through so many different people that I just gave up.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: sdmichael on September 29, 2016, 10:41:59 PM
I'm not going to belabor the point any longer of arguing with you over the ease or lack thereof of getting Caltrans to respond to complaints about signing issues.  I (and others) will say my experiences affirm they are non-responsive, and you will continue to counter with your experience that they are very responsive.  Short of each side repeatedly calling the other a liar, we won't convince you any more than you will convince us.  It's a shame though, because I have admired you for your SCV roadpage since I began visiting it in the late 90's, and I am extremely surprised with how confrontational and dismissive you've been with other posters on this particular topic, even in other threads (e.g., the 210, 14, 5 interchange thread).  Because we're not going to convince each other, unfortunately I'll leave this argument with the trite but applicable "agree to disagree."

I really thank you for being one-sided in this. In regards to the other thread, I also felt someone was being dismissive and confrontational about what they presented (sparker in particular) despite a lack of facts and understanding of the total picture, at least in how I felt. I vocalized my thoughts in this forum topic, to which I got a response. But please, place the blame all on me. Must be my problem, not an issue others have contributed to. I actually did research into the history and design of the interchange, not just coming up with suppositions and/or "how it needs to be". I even have the actual plans for the interchange, both pre-quake and post-quake. I also presented the proper medium to send ideas for proposed improvements to the interchange.

Must be me that is the problem here, telling people the proper place to go to help improve things for the rest of us. Must be me that is the problem trying to help the general public, as I have sought for more than 20 years. Guess all that was just me being dismissive and confrontational.

Calling each side a "liar"? I present my contributions and positive communications with these agencies and I'm the problem? Really? I call BS, pure and simple.

Maybe I'll just go back to no longer contributing to this forum as it would seem it is unneeded. You, and many others, are set in their ways about what is right and don't need my help. I just will not stand for the attitude that things are bad, government agencies suck and should do all my bidding, and don't listen to complaints. It simply isn't true and is BS. You say you can't get things done, I say you're wrong, and again, must be my problem.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: myosh_tino on September 30, 2016, 03:31:47 AM
On a related note regarding the responsiveness (or lack there of) at Caltrans, the advance exit sign for First Street in San Jose on south I-880 has had an incorrect exit number since the sign was installed in 2013 (GMSV: https://goo.gl/maps/fnekTEqMMM62).  This leads to me to believe one of two things…

Caltrans knows but hasn't done anything which goes to show the priority level of exit numbering.

*OR*

The general public doesn't give a flying flip about exit numbers on guide signs to the point that no one has bothered to notify Caltrans of the error.

I would tend to lean towards the latter.  It's my belief that us locals could care less whether an exit is numbered or not as we navigate primarily by road name or route number.  When new signs were installed on US 101 in Millbrae, an interchange sequence sign misspelled "Millbrae" by reversing the "a" and "e".  Complaints poured in to local TV and newspapers who, of course, relayed the error on to Caltrans.  Needless to say, the sign was fixed just a few days later.  Compare that response to the erroneous exit number sign I mentioned above. Three years later and it still hasn't been fixed.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: roadfro on September 30, 2016, 10:34:23 AM
The 'back and forth' about the viewpoints and responses of other commenters in this thread has gone on long enough (it's bordering on insulting remarks aimed at other members, which is not allowed per the forum guidelines). Please move on.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: coatimundi on September 30, 2016, 12:23:59 PM
Compare that response to the erroneous exit number sign I mentioned above. Three years later and it still hasn't been fixed.

This is a good point, and I think this gets down to the root of it.
Before you said it here, I was going to mention that the roads columns in newspapers are typically very effective at getting things done, because the agency's PIO (or whoever responds) knows that they need to answer the question. That's sometimes the best way to approach it, though it does have to meet that particular paper's standards of level of interest, and I would guess that an erroneous exit number may not make the cut. As for why a spelling error trumps an erroneous exit number, I would guess that either not enough people noticed the exit number, while people just generally love to feel smart by pointing out grammatical and spelling errors, especially when it's produced by a government agency.

Locally, I know that Bay Area drivers do not use exit numbers. However, visitors often do, because mapping programs do. But are visitors actually going to contact an appropriate agency or a local newspaper? Probably not. They may complain to their hotel or local hosts, but I would guess that they would mostly be written off as just not knowing the area.

BTW, regarding Bay Area exit numbers, I would love to see a pic posted of a really terrible sign that they have up on 580 eastbound just after the San Rafael bridge. At Marina Bay Parkway, the "10A" has been pasted onto the "EXIT" sign at the ramp, crammed in on a skinny, small font. I didn't have time to get a pic of it earlier this month, and GSV hasn't been updated enough for the change, but if anyone is in that area...
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: sparker on September 30, 2016, 02:55:17 PM
I have a basic "rule of thumb" in regards to signage on relinquished routes:  if they connect two or more unrelinquished sections of a particular state highway (e.g., CA 1 in Los Angeles County) then signage over the relinquished sections should, in accordance with legal requirements, be maintained -- hopefully by the jurisdiction maintaining the relinquished facility, but as a 2nd resort, Caltrans (maybe Caltrans can deploy the signs and let the local governmental body actually clean them off once in a while!). 

"Useless" relinquishments (such as CA 2 west of I-405) need not be signed as state highways at all; they aren't really needed for local or interregional navigation.  Also, a route that has little use due to the proximity of nearby freeways (e.g., CA 19/Rosemead/Lakewood Blvd.) need not be signed; its utility as a through state route was overtaken long ago by the flanking I-710 and I-605.  The only portion that even remotely serves as an independent route is the portion north of Whittier Narrows, which is actually/legally designated as CA 164.  IMO, if any signage was to be retained on the old "19" route, this section would be appropriate -  as CA 164 from CA 60 north to I-210.  But Rosemead Blvd. works as a local arterial sans numerical signage, so it is fully functional either way.

And a note to sdmichael:  Don't leave the forum!  Despite our differences of opinion, your contributions have been valuable and worthwhile.  Stick around -- I look forward to your future input -- and possibly occasionally arguing with you -- in a civil manner, of course. 
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Occidental Tourist on September 30, 2016, 06:41:11 PM
I have a basic "rule of thumb" in regards to signage on relinquished routes:  if they connect two or more unrelinquished sections of a particular state highway (e.g., CA 1 in Los Angeles County) then signage over the relinquished sections should, in accordance with legal requirements, be maintained
"Useless" relinquishments (such as CA 2 west of I-405) need not be signed as state highways at all;

I agree about jettisoning most of the urban highway designations and not signing those except for the important interregional routes.  I remember when CalNEXUS was being implemented in the mid-2000's, I contacted District 7 to ask why SR-91 was starting with Exit 5 if the portion east of the 110 had been officially relinquished and removed from the highway system.  And some of us raised this issue again last year when the sign replacement contract for the 405 included SR 91 exit signage for Artesia.

I'm on the fence about 39. 
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: andy3175 on October 01, 2016, 10:52:24 PM
And a note to sdmichael:  Don't leave the forum!  Despite our differences of opinion, your contributions have been valuable and worthwhile.  Stick around -- I look forward to your future input -- and possibly occasionally arguing with you -- in a civil manner, of course. 

Second that... for the both of you! I have appreciated input from both sdmichael and sparker on the forum and would hate either to leave. And that doesn't even credit the rest of you who have participated in this thread and other west coast road discussions. Thank you!
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: MarkF on October 02, 2016, 01:12:24 AM
... I challenge anyone to find SR 1 markers running through Dana Point other than the "alternate" route created by the elimination of a one-way couplet near downtown).

Drove through there today, there is what appears to be a real CA 1 marker on northbound PCH in front of the the Starbucks just south of Street of the Ruby Lantern.

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4662341,-117.7034623,3a,60y,330.93h,89.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sj7Bs-SXTtIDEHIlh5kza6w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: emory on October 03, 2016, 06:32:57 PM
I have a basic "rule of thumb" in regards to signage on relinquished routes:  if they connect two or more unrelinquished sections of a particular state highway (e.g., CA 1 in Los Angeles County) then signage over the relinquished sections should, in accordance with legal requirements, be maintained
"Useless" relinquishments (such as CA 2 west of I-405) need not be signed as state highways at all;

I agree about jettisoning most of the urban highway designations and not signing those except for the important interregional routes.  I remember when CalNEXUS was being implemented in the mid-2000's, I contacted District 7 to ask why SR-91 was starting with Exit 5 if the portion east of the 110 had been officially relinquished and removed from the highway system.  And some of us raised this issue again last year when the sign replacement contract for the 405 included SR 91 exit signage for Artesia.

I'm on the fence about 39.

I'd like to see the I-110 exit sign for CA 91 modified in the future to only indicate the route as going East. Right now it still says EAST / WEST even though the western stub is now a glorified exit ramp to Artesia Blvd and Vermont Ave.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: coatimundi on October 03, 2016, 08:13:19 PM
I'd like to see the I-110 exit sign for CA 91 modified in the future to only indicate the route as going East. Right now it still says EAST / WEST even though the western stub is now a glorified exit ramp to Artesia Blvd and Vermont Ave.

That little stub is officially 91 though. It just ends almost right away at Vermont Avenue.
I would think it would cause more confusion to remove the 91 from the west-heading ramp signs. It's just been there for so long that it might throw people off.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: NE2 on October 04, 2016, 12:10:26 PM
SR 168 was never legislatively defined as a state highway across the Sierras...but the 1934 creation of sign routes (http://archive.org/stream/californiahighwa193436calirich#page/n275/mode/2up) included a piece there. (Note that not all sign routes were state-maintained at this time.)
SR 180 had a similar extension from Kings Canyon east to Independence.

SR 96 also had a gap, but by 1938 the west end was moved to Willow Creek. The gap is now SR 169, still incomplete.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Occidental Tourist on October 04, 2016, 01:16:36 PM
I'd like to see the I-110 exit sign for CA 91 modified in the future to only indicate the route as going East. Right now it still says EAST / WEST even though the western stub is now a glorified exit ramp to Artesia Blvd and Vermont Ave.
I agree.  There's also the issue of signage on the 91 west itself.  All it says is "End Freeway."  No indication that SR-91 is ending, that you're being dumped onto Artesia Blvd, or that Vermont is the next interchange/intersection.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: TheStranger on October 04, 2016, 02:26:29 PM

I agree.  There's also the issue of signage on the 91 west itself.  All it says is "End Freeway."  No indication that SR-91 is ending, that you're being dumped onto Artesia Blvd, or that Vermont is the next interchange/intersection.

Thinking out loud:

Would some sort of signage encouraging drivers going to Redondo Beach to use 110 to 405 (instead of staying on Artesia westbound/decommissioned 91) be a good idea?  (Kinda like in Oakland where the old 980-to-880 signage at the Macarthur Maze was up while the Cypress freeway realignment/reconstruction was occurring, designed to discourage through traffic from using the surface Mandela Parkway/old Route 17/old Cypress Street).
 
Though last time I was on Artesia Boulevard west of 110 (2014?) there was a surprising amount of 91 shields remaining heading out towards Route 1 - more signage for 91 on the boulevard than there was at the time for Route 18 between Palmdale and US 395!
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Max Rockatansky on October 04, 2016, 10:49:07 PM
SR 168 was never legislatively defined as a state highway across the Sierras...but the 1934 creation of sign routes (http://archive.org/stream/californiahighwa193436calirich#page/n275/mode/2up) included a piece there. (Note that not all sign routes were state-maintained at this time.)
SR 180 had a similar extension from Kings Canyon east to Independence.

SR 96 also had a gap, but by 1938 the west end was moved to Willow Creek. The gap is now SR 169, still incomplete.

I'm sure that's not the most accurate map ever, but it sure makes it look like 168 was a state highway to Florence Lake given that weird curvature matches Kaiser Pass Road.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: coatimundi on October 04, 2016, 11:56:30 PM
I'd like to see the I-110 exit sign for CA 91 modified in the future to only indicate the route as going East. Right now it still says EAST / WEST even though the western stub is now a glorified exit ramp to Artesia Blvd and Vermont Ave.
I agree.  There's also the issue of signage on the 91 west itself.  All it says is "End Freeway."  No indication that SR-91 is ending, that you're being dumped onto Artesia Blvd, or that Vermont is the next interchange/intersection.

I love those "End" signs and wish that California was more consistent in their deployment. It's always surprising to see one.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Occidental Tourist on October 05, 2016, 10:39:02 PM
Thinking out loud:

Would some sort of signage encouraging drivers going to Redondo Beach to use 110 to 405 (instead of staying on Artesia westbound/decommissioned 91) be a good idea?  (Kinda like in Oakland where the old 980-to-880 signage at the Macarthur Maze was up while the Cypress freeway realignment/reconstruction was occurring, designed to discourage through traffic from using the surface Mandela Parkway/old Route 17/old Cypress Street).

I'd say so.  Before 91 was decommisioned west of the 110, I thought they should have rerouted it along the 110 and 405 to Artesia because back then that was a faster route than taking Artesia between the 405 and 110.  It's debatable whether it's still faster with today's traffic, but arguably out-of-town motorists trying to get to the beach would be more comfortable sitting in traffic on the 405 than on Artesia in Gardena.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: sparker on October 07, 2016, 05:57:50 PM
Thinking out loud:

Would some sort of signage encouraging drivers going to Redondo Beach to use 110 to 405 (instead of staying on Artesia westbound/decommissioned 91) be a good idea?  (Kinda like in Oakland where the old 980-to-880 signage at the Macarthur Maze was up while the Cypress freeway realignment/reconstruction was occurring, designed to discourage through traffic from using the surface Mandela Parkway/old Route 17/old Cypress Street).

I'd say so.  Before 91 was decommisioned west of the 110, I thought they should have rerouted it along the 110 and 405 to Artesia because back then that was a faster route than taking Artesia between the 405 and 110.  It's debatable whether it's still faster with today's traffic, but arguably out-of-town motorists trying to get to the beach would be more comfortable sitting in traffic on the 405 than on Artesia in Gardena.
Caltrans' disdain for multiplexed routes -- particularly one that would require multiple transfer points such as from its own WB alignment to south 110 and then north 405, complete with appropriate signage -- would make such an arrangement unlikely.  Compounding this would be the fact that any singularly-signed western continuation of CA 91 would be along the Artesia Blvd. surface facility -- which is now relinquished.  Slim chances prior to relinquishment; not a chance today.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: ACSCmapcollector on October 13, 2016, 11:37:49 PM
The 185 signage actually fits with the post-relinquishment route definition for the Hayward segment.

So I don't know that I was totally clear on where that signage is, but it's on the traffic signal at D Street on the southbound-only Mission Boulevard. So there is no 185 south of there. Even when there was, it was for another block. I guess it could be referring to the loop you can take to reach 185 north, but it seems like it'd be more appropriate to sign 238 if you're going to sogn a route there.

But, yeah, the relinquishments were absolutely related to the Hayward Loop. Maybe Caltrans said, "No, that's stupid and we are not going to be a part of it."


I would like to see that ridicoulous Interstate 238 sign removed between I-880 and I-580/CA 238 in the eastern San Francisco Bay area.


MOD NOTE: Removed double quote. —Roadfro.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: coatimundi on October 14, 2016, 01:20:32 AM
I would like to see that ridicoulous Interstate 238 sign removed between I-880 and I-580/CA 238 in the eastern San Francisco Bay area.

But it is Interstate 238. Why would you remove a sign for a route that exists, especially an interstate?
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: djsekani on October 14, 2016, 08:16:06 AM
I'd like to see the I-110 exit sign for CA 91 modified in the future to only indicate the route as going East. Right now it still says EAST / WEST even though the western stub is now a glorified exit ramp to Artesia Blvd and Vermont Ave.
I agree.  There's also the issue of signage on the 91 west itself.  All it says is "End Freeway."  No indication that SR-91 is ending, that you're being dumped onto Artesia Blvd, or that Vermont is the next interchange/intersection.

Relinquished or not there are still signs all the way down to PCH for CA-91.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: oscar on October 14, 2016, 08:25:33 AM
I would like to see that ridicoulous Interstate 238 sign removed between I-880 and I-580/CA 238 in the eastern San Francisco Bay area.

But it is Interstate 238. Why would you remove a sign for a route that exists, especially an interstate?

If the issue is that I-238 exists, search Fictional Highways for multiple proposals (some more comic than others) to renumber that freeway. If CA 238 were to be completely relinquished, that would remove one excuse for retaining the I-238 number.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: coatimundi on October 14, 2016, 10:21:16 PM
Thinking out loud:

Would some sort of signage encouraging drivers going to Redondo Beach to use 110 to 405 (instead of staying on Artesia westbound/decommissioned 91) be a good idea?  (Kinda like in Oakland where the old 980-to-880 signage at the Macarthur Maze was up while the Cypress freeway realignment/reconstruction was occurring, designed to discourage through traffic from using the surface Mandela Parkway/old Route 17/old Cypress Street).

I'd say so.  Before 91 was decommisioned west of the 110, I thought they should have rerouted it along the 110 and 405 to Artesia because back then that was a faster route than taking Artesia between the 405 and 110.  It's debatable whether it's still faster with today's traffic, but arguably out-of-town motorists trying to get to the beach would be more comfortable sitting in traffic on the 405 than on Artesia in Gardena.

So, driving 405 today, I never realized that 91 was signed on the Artesia Boulevard signs, both BGS and sequential. The sequential at least said "West" on it, so as not to confuse people with the Artesia Freeway.
But am I stupid or does 91 not even exist there?
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: emory on October 15, 2016, 02:54:04 AM
Thinking out loud:

Would some sort of signage encouraging drivers going to Redondo Beach to use 110 to 405 (instead of staying on Artesia westbound/decommissioned 91) be a good idea?  (Kinda like in Oakland where the old 980-to-880 signage at the Macarthur Maze was up while the Cypress freeway realignment/reconstruction was occurring, designed to discourage through traffic from using the surface Mandela Parkway/old Route 17/old Cypress Street).

I'd say so.  Before 91 was decommisioned west of the 110, I thought they should have rerouted it along the 110 and 405 to Artesia because back then that was a faster route than taking Artesia between the 405 and 110.  It's debatable whether it's still faster with today's traffic, but arguably out-of-town motorists trying to get to the beach would be more comfortable sitting in traffic on the 405 than on Artesia in Gardena.

So, driving 405 today, I never realized that 91 was signed on the Artesia Boulevard signs, both BGS and sequential. The sequential at least said "West" on it, so as not to confuse people with the Artesia Freeway.
But am I stupid or does 91 not even exist there?

91 no longer exists on Artesia Blvd.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: mrsman on October 16, 2016, 03:08:05 PM
Thinking out loud:

Would some sort of signage encouraging drivers going to Redondo Beach to use 110 to 405 (instead of staying on Artesia westbound/decommissioned 91) be a good idea?  (Kinda like in Oakland where the old 980-to-880 signage at the Macarthur Maze was up while the Cypress freeway realignment/reconstruction was occurring, designed to discourage through traffic from using the surface Mandela Parkway/old Route 17/old Cypress Street).

I'd say so.  Before 91 was decommisioned west of the 110, I thought they should have rerouted it along the 110 and 405 to Artesia because back then that was a faster route than taking Artesia between the 405 and 110.  It's debatable whether it's still faster with today's traffic, but arguably out-of-town motorists trying to get to the beach would be more comfortable sitting in traffic on the 405 than on Artesia in Gardena.

So, driving 405 today, I never realized that 91 was signed on the Artesia Boulevard signs, both BGS and sequential. The sequential at least said "West" on it, so as not to confuse people with the Artesia Freeway.
But am I stupid or does 91 not even exist there?

91 no longer exists on Artesia Blvd.

Technically true, but based on the existing BGS, this is somewhat confusing:

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8726477,-118.2710787,3a,75y,280.68h,81.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smyMzli71X3LpIERCnbROgA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


There should be no more signs of 91 on BGS west of the 110.  The signs should indicate "Artesia Blvd" without referencing a highway number.  Also, the control city for I-110 south to 405 should be "San Pedro/Santa Monica", not just "San Pedro".  This will encourage traffic heading to 405 north and the upper beach cities from using the 405 and staying off the local streets.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: coatimundi on October 17, 2016, 02:43:47 AM
There should be no more signs of 91 on BGS west of the 110.  The signs should indicate "Artesia Blvd" without referencing a highway number.  Also, the control city for I-110 south to 405 should be "San Pedro/Santa Monica", not just "San Pedro".  This will encourage traffic heading to 405 north and the upper beach cities from using the 405 and staying off the local streets.

Well, this is the BGS I was referring to. There's absolutely no reason for it to be there. But there are several others if you keep going.
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8669248,-118.3338901,3a,75y,306.66h,87.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1segc-x16TqarhyxbtY1zM6g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Meanwhile, the southbound side has this as well, and it's much more confusing, as the "Artesia" coupled with the route number (what the freeway is usually called) reinforces that it will lead drivers to the freeway.
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.872916,-118.3425228,3a,75y,156.41h,80.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srUmiCt_GPS-PWtdBCLT42A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I suppose Santa Monica on the initial BGS for the ramp to 110 on 91 westbound would make sense since the 405 is also signed there.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: pderocco on November 13, 2016, 03:18:58 AM
Someone mentioned CA-169 along the Klamath River, which exists in two separate pieces. But there is another split road in that part of the state, which is CA-162. It goes from US-101 in Longvale to Indian Dick Rd in Sherburns, and then becomes the dirt Forest Route 7 over Mendocino Pass, after which CA-162 returns from Rd 307 NW of Elk Creek across the Central Valley ending just E of Lake Oroville.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: pderocco on November 13, 2016, 03:33:42 AM
SR 168 was never legislatively defined as a state highway across the Sierras...but the 1934 creation of sign routes (http://archive.org/stream/californiahighwa193436calirich#page/n275/mode/2up) included a piece there. (Note that not all sign routes were state-maintained at this time.)
SR 180 had a similar extension from Kings Canyon east to Independence.

That's the first map I've ever seen that actually showed a proposed connections for 168.

However, the official state maps showed the proposed 190 for years. http://www.davidrumsey.com (http://www.davidrumsey.com) has those from 1926 to 1970, and 190 appears in 1934, going over Horseshoe Meadow Rd into Lone Pine, so I wonder if it was ever signed as such. The routing was changed to Olancha in 1960, which didn't involve any 10000+ foot passes, and then to an even lower pass near Haiwee in 1966.

Also check out this fragment of a SoCal Auto Club map: http://www.historicalroadmaps.com/CaliforniaPage/DeathValleyPage/ (http://www.historicalroadmaps.com/CaliforniaPage/DeathValleyPage/) (the one on the right). It shows Onion Valley Rd out of Independance as CA-180. I wonder if it was actually signed.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Max Rockatansky on November 13, 2016, 08:59:10 AM
SR 168 was never legislatively defined as a state highway across the Sierras...but the 1934 creation of sign routes (http://archive.org/stream/californiahighwa193436calirich#page/n275/mode/2up) included a piece there. (Note that not all sign routes were state-maintained at this time.)
SR 180 had a similar extension from Kings Canyon east to Independence.

That's the first map I've ever seen that actually showed a proposed connections for 168.

However, the official state maps showed the proposed 190 for years. http://www.davidrumsey.com (http://www.davidrumsey.com) has those from 1926 to 1970, and 190 appears in 1934, going over Horseshoe Meadow Rd into Lone Pine, so I wonder if it was ever signed as such. The routing was changed to Olancha in 1960, which didn't involve any 10000+ foot passes, and then to an even lower pass near Haiwee in 1966.

Also check out this fragment of a SoCal Auto Club map: http://www.historicalroadmaps.com/CaliforniaPage/DeathValleyPage/ (http://www.historicalroadmaps.com/CaliforniaPage/DeathValleyPage/) (the one on the right). It shows Onion Valley Rd out of Independance as CA-180. I wonder if it was actually signed.

With the 190 stuff I think you are referring to the 1938 State Highway Map here:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239588~5511892:Road-Map-of-the-State-of-California?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=69&trs=86

Interestingly 180 is shown as being routed over Panoche Road whereas later maps show it only as a proposed extension of the route.  I'm fairly certain it was the "CA 245 and other weird state highways" thread where 180 was discussed more in length....I know that I touched on it on "Max's Roads."  Another fun 180 fact for you; it used to run on Dunlap Road east of Fresno which you can see in the above map.  That meant that CA 65 ended at Dunlap while 180 continued up north at General Grant Grove from here:

http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh630/MadMaxRockatansky73/IMG_8056_zpscdzwtyzv.jpg

So essentially from Dunlap Road north to modern CA 180 has carried four state highway numbers; CA 180, CA 65, CA 69, and CA 245...it has to be high on the list of one of the most recycled pieces of road state maintained roadways. 

Speaking of CA 168, I did a lot of research on the road a couple months back which included Tollhouse Road, north shore Huntington Lake Road conjecture, and even even Kaiser Pass Road.  You can find all of it on Reply #49 here:

http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18621.25

CA 190 should have ended up taking M107, M50, M99, Sherman Pass Road, and J41 once they got built up then paved.  The problem with that happening is that the Forest Service built those roads and it would require a long multiplex from Nine Mile Canyon/J41 to gap the route...which is close to impossible to do in a post 1964 renumbering and California Division of Highways world.  I'm pretty sure Quillz and I talked about maybe trying to contact someone in the Forest Service about changing the routes above to FR190.  J41 isn't signed in the field...I'm not sure if it ever was but that would involve contacting Tulare and Inyo County about a CR190.  I might actually send the Forest Service something today given that I'm up already and kind of bored..
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: NE2 on December 30, 2016, 05:02:58 PM
(https://ia801409.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/26/items/californiahighwa196465calirich/californiahighwa196465calirich_jp2.zip&file=californiahighwa196465calirich_jp2/californiahighwa196465calirich_0213.jp2&scale=2&rotate=0)

Also: http://archive.org/stream/califvol4546orniahighwa6667calirich#page/n77/mode/2up

Unfortunately there's no detailed map of the route between Quaking Aspen and Haiwee Pass. You'd have to go through CHC records from fall 1965.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Quillz on December 30, 2016, 07:11:31 PM
I'm curious if any sort of detailed map would exist at all. My understanding is the CA-190 crossing through the Sierra was more or less just a line on paper and nothing more. The traversable segment today is realistically the only thing that would ever become a CA-190 segment. I stated before the last time I drove through that portion of the Sierra, around October or so, the roadway was in pretty good condition. Except around Kennedy Meadows, where its narrow and the striping was poor. But otherwise, especially around Sherman Pass, there is a very good quality road (but obviously wouldn't be usable in the winter).
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Max Rockatansky on December 30, 2016, 07:41:01 PM
I'm curious if any sort of detailed map would exist at all. My understanding is the CA-190 crossing through the Sierra was more or less just a line on paper and nothing more. The traversable segment today is realistically the only thing that would ever become a CA-190 segment. I stated before the last time I drove through that portion of the Sierra, around October or so, the roadway was in pretty good condition. Except around Kennedy Meadows, where its narrow and the striping was poor. But otherwise, especially around Sherman Pass, there is a very good quality road (but obviously wouldn't be usable in the winter).

Funny how the Tulare County maintained portions are in rough shape but not so much for the Forest Service and Inyo County.  I'm fairly certain the portion near Kennedy Meadows you are talking about is east out to the Inyo County Line.  Sherman Pass Road is in fantastic shape sans some really old signage that is probably original to the route.  Nine Mile Canyon Road on the Inyo side is the only one lane portion and it is very brief but well maintained.  Interesting to see a map with even the detail above in NE2's post for Olancha Pass regardless.  I find it odd how much effort Tulare County made in improving all those Mountain Routes like M50, M56, M99, and M107 when it really wasn't necessary aside from maybe when Johnsondale when in it's timber cutting prime.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: cahwyguy on December 30, 2016, 08:09:07 PM
I'm curious if any sort of detailed map would exist at all.

Phrase your question differently. I'm sure that somewhere in the history library at Caltrans, where they keep the records on each route, there are maps. That's a very different question from whether non-employees could get to the map (and more to the point, whether it would make a difference). There are many fanciful ideas for routes, both within Caltrans and out on these forums. Most don't have a realistic chance of being either constructed or constructable.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Max Rockatansky on December 30, 2016, 08:17:57 PM
I'm curious if any sort of detailed map would exist at all.

Phrase your question differently. I'm sure that somewhere in the history library at Caltrans, where they keep the records on each route, there are maps. That's a very different question from whether non-employees could get to the map (and more to the point, whether it would make a difference). There are many fanciful ideas for routes, both within Caltrans and out on these forums. Most don't have a realistic chance of being either constructed or constructable.

But that's the big difference between 180, 168, and even 178 compared to 190.  190 had a pretty certain alignment that was roughly dotted-lined across the Sierras and it was a plausible one.  Both 180 and 168 had some pretty crazy ideas to get them over the Sierras as a complete route that would dwarf even Tioga Pass. If you are going to cross Olancha Pass is certainly a good place to go and would have compared favorably to something like 108 over Sonora Pass or 4 over Ebbetts. 

For me it's intriguing because I would love to see how the Division Highways wanted to tackle Upper Kern River Canyon.  M99 has a very gentle approach to the Kern River that was helped along by logging interests in Johnsondale alone with pre-existing roadway north out of Kernville.  Really the 1970s with the EPA Act probably really killed 190 more than anything else....perhaps the Division of Highways being reorganized as well.

It's ironic the Forest Service would go ahead and take all that effort to build Sherman Pass Road anyways which essentially led to a functional route between the 190 segments.  If I had to rank the passes I would put passage over Sherman Pass well ahead of Sonora or Ebbetts for ease of travel.  Even the County Route system got in on the action with J41 on Nine Mile Canyon Road, although there aren't any signs present nor am I aware if they ever were there at all.

When I get home I'll link over some of the research I did for Sherman Pass and the Mountain Routes in Tulare County.  Not state highways but was some certainly interesting that had more detail to be found than I expected.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: cahwyguy on December 30, 2016, 08:29:08 PM
By the way, I'll throw one more into the mix, with a question.

Quote
I got the following question today on my site:

I think I found an error in the entry for Highway 162.  It reads:

Historically, this route is close to the original "El Camino Real" (The Kings Road). A portion of this route has officially been designated as part of "El Camino Real by Assembly Bill 1707, Chapter 739, on October 11, 2001.

I happen to live in Willows, right off of Highway 162, and I found this reference to be rather odd.
 
I looked up the assembly bill.  It does indeed reference Highway 162, but I think it must have been some other highway…or perhaps just a typo?  The current 162 runs through parts of Mendocino, Glenn, and Butte County, which would be quite some distance from the old missions.

The relevant segment is the first segment of Route 162, and here's what I have:

1. From Route 101 near Longvale to Route 5 near Willows via the vicinity of Covelo and Mendocino Pass.

This segment was not a state route before 1965. The route runs (signed as Route 162) along Covelo Road into Covelo. From that point, state maintenance end, but the traversable route then runs E along Mendocino Pass Road (unsigned, but marked FH-7) through the Mendocino National Forest. Mendocino Pass Road becomes Alder Springs Road in Glenn County. Signage of the road resumes near Elk Creek when Route 162 exits the National Forest. The route enters Willows along Wood Street.

Unconstructed from Covelo (Mendocino County PM34.05) to near Elk Creek (Glenn County PM37.65). The traversable local routing is Mendocino Pass Road and Alder Springs Road (both part of Forest Highway (FH) 7) and the unnamed portions of FH 7. As of October 1997, FWHA, Caltrans, and the USFS had decided not to reconstruct and pave 47 miles of FH 7. Mendocino Pass Road is primitive and unsuitable for use in a state highway. Alder Springs Road was improved in 1972 and repaired in 1978. Federal funds of $4M were allocated towards the improvement of Route 162 E of Alder Springs, but the road is still not to state standards.

Historically, this route is close to the original "El Camino Real" (The Kings Road). A portion of this route has officially been designated as part of "El Camino Real by Assembly Bill 1707, Chapter 739, on October 11, 2001.
 
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: NE2 on December 30, 2016, 09:06:53 PM
By the way, I'll throw one more into the mix, with a question.
I bet it's supposed to be 262. The following appears to be the route: 12-121-37-101-280-82-101-[city]-72-5, with a branch on 123-[city]-185-238-[city]-262-[city]. I don't know how 87 got in there, and 92 is certainly not necessary to get between 185 and 238.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: cahwyguy on December 30, 2016, 09:29:53 PM
By the way, I'll throw one more into the mix, with a question.
I bet it's supposed to be 262. The following appears to be the route: 12-121-37-101-280-82-101-[city]-72-5, with a branch on 123-[city]-185-238-[city]-262-[city]. I don't know how 87 got in there, and 92 is certainly not necessary to get between 185 and 238.

92 is likely there because of the connection with 82, which was the original 101 (and they are dealing only with the W peninsula side). Probably something similar with 87 and a connection with San Jose. 262 makes no sense -- did El Camino Real run up that side of the bay at all? Being a Southern California native, my California history of the bay area during that time is a bit sparse. I know there were missions in San Jose and a Presidio in San Francisco.

Here's the link to the bill in question: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=200120020AB1707

In any case, relevant to this discussion, was the fact that the first segment of 162 is a discontiguous route in practice.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: andy3175 on December 30, 2016, 11:28:03 PM
By the way, I'll throw one more into the mix, with a question.
I bet it's supposed to be 262. The following appears to be the route: 12-121-37-101-280-82-101-[city]-72-5, with a branch on 123-[city]-185-238-[city]-262-[city]. I don't know how 87 got in there, and 92 is certainly not necessary to get between 185 and 238.

92 is likely there because of the connection with 82, which was the original 101 (and they are dealing only with the W peninsula side). Probably something similar with 87 and a connection with San Jose. 262 makes no sense -- did El Camino Real run up that side of the bay at all? Being a Southern California native, my California history of the bay area during that time is a bit sparse. I know there were missions in San Jose and a Presidio in San Francisco.

Here's the link to the bill in question: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=200120020AB1707

In any case, relevant to this discussion, was the fact that the first segment of 162 is a discontiguous route in practice.

I agree with NE2 that this is supposed to reference SR 262. El Camino Real only goes as far north as Sonoma, which is the northernmost mission. SR 162 is north of Sonoma, so I think the link you cited has a typo. Since Mission San Jose actually sits on Mission Boulevard between I-680 Exits 12 and 16 (Exit 12 is SR 262 and Exit 16 is SR 238), I am fairly sure SR 262 is the intended route for this citation. SR 162 doesn't come close to any mission as far as I know.

Wikipedia has a decent map that shows El Camino Real linking the missions together:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Camino_Real_(California)#/media/File:1920_Alta_California_mission_trail.jpg
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Max Rockatansky on December 30, 2016, 11:31:32 PM
As promised, some of my stuff from the Max's Roads thread in regards to 190, 180, 168, and other related stuff to gapped routes:

168; replies 49 and 50

-  Reply 49 has discussion about Kaiser Pass Road which likely would have been utilized in a trans-Sierra crossing.
-  Reply 49 has discussion about the 168 alignment change from the North Shore of Lake Huntington to the South, maps included.
-  Reply 49 has discussion about the 168 alignment on Tollhouse Road through Tollhouse before 168 was realigned through Prather with maps
-  Reply 50 has a couple videos of Kaiser Pass Road.
-  Reply 53 seems to have an inferred routing of 168 all the way to Florence Lake on Kaiser Pass Road.  It is difficult to tell for certain given that the map only contains the actual roadways and no State Signed Route Numbers.

180; replies 53 and 79

-  Reply 53 has discussion about the old alignment of 180 on Dunlap Road, 65, and 245 with maps included. 
-  There is a inferred routing of 180 on a 1934 map most of the way through the Sierras.
-  Reply 79 shows CA 180 signs in Grant Grove section of Kings Canyon National Park where there is supposedly a gap in the route.


Conjecture relevant to crossing the Sierras near the gap in CA 190 with Sherman Pass Road, J41, M50, M99, M56, and M107; replies 94,

190; replies 53 and 97

-  Reply 53 shows an inferred route of 190 through the Sierras that appears to be different than the 1964 routing.
-  Reply 97 shows the western half of 190 which includes the end point at M107.

Conjecture relevant to crossing the Sierras near the gap in CA 190 with Sherman Pass Road, J41, M50, M99, M56, and M107; replies 94 and 97


I apologize in advance for the disorganization, all the above is why I started to break things up into 2-3 topics per thread.  Really I was getting the gist that the thread was getting hard to follow with the shotgunned information in large posts.  I want to say it was Quillz that had a map showing a full implied route of 180 through the Sierras with it popping out on Onion Valley Road sometime in the 1930s before General Grant National Park became Kings Canyon National Park?  Regardless the Dunlap Road alignment of 180 might not haven't been captured yet on Cahighways that are in the listed replies above.

Edit:  Found the map Quillz posted in the following thread on Reply 68:

http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17893.50

It doesn't seem that the year of the map was discussed but considering CA 7 is present it would put it sometime in 1934:

(http://i.imgur.com/GLT0Gb7.png)
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: NE2 on December 31, 2016, 12:10:15 AM
123, 185, and 238 only make sense if the law is defining an East Bay branch.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: cahwyguy on December 31, 2016, 12:22:02 AM
Well, then if the law is in error, we should find someone willing to correct the definition. After all, we've had such luck with correcting the legislative definitions of other highways  :-D [Seriously, I"ll just put a note in the page for 162, and see if anyone notices]
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: NE2 on December 31, 2016, 01:58:57 AM
It doesn't seem that the year of the map was discussed but considering CA 7 is present it would put it sometime in 1934:

(http://i.imgur.com/GLT0Gb7.png)
That's this map: http://archive.org/stream/californiahighwa193436calirich#page/n275/mode/2up
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Max Rockatansky on December 31, 2016, 10:03:23 AM
It doesn't seem that the year of the map was discussed but considering CA 7 is present it would put it sometime in 1934:

(http://i.imgur.com/GLT0Gb7.png)
That's this map: http://archive.org/stream/californiahighwa193436calirich#page/n275/mode/2up

That's interesting, that map also seems to suggest 168 was complete to Florence Lake using Kaiser Pass Road before the implied route through Sierra begins.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on December 31, 2016, 02:30:39 PM
Here's a question.  Of the Trans-Sierra Routes that do exist.  Which is the best on in terms of scenery and driving experience?
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Quillz on December 31, 2016, 02:35:58 PM
Here's a question.  Of the Trans-Sierra Routes that do exist.  Which is the best on in terms of scenery and driving experience?
CA-120 is the most scenic, IMO. But its probably the worst from a driving experience since you have to pay the Yosemite park fee.

When driving back from the Tahoe area, I took US-50 which is a nice drive along the American River canyon. Slower than I-80, of course, but certainly not a bad alternative.

I've not driven on CA-88, but this is said to be another scenic route. I can see it being useful for northbound motorists wanting to to to Tahoe, they can use it as a cutoff.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Max Rockatansky on December 31, 2016, 02:59:08 PM
Here's a question.  Of the Trans-Sierra Routes that do exist.  Which is the best on in terms of scenery and driving experience?

That depends here is how I would rank them upon certain criteria:

Ease of travel

1.  CA 58 Tehachpi Pass
2.  I-80 Donner Summit/Old US 40 Donner Pass
3.  CA 178 Walker Pass

Most Scenic

1. CA 120 Tioga Pass
2. CA 108 Sonora Pass
3. Sherman Pass

Best driving experience

1.  CA 4 Ebbetts Pass
2.  CA 108 Sonora Pass
3.  Sherman Pass

I rate my criteria for the driving experience based off the variance in the route you are likely to get coupled with solitude.  None of my top three would be something you could mow through but require your attention and skill.  I guess that I'm a sucker for difficult drives and the thrill they bring. 

To me that makes for a rewarding drive.  As far as scenery it is very difficult to beat seeing Half Dome, Tuolummne Meadows, and Lee Vining Canyon all on Tioga Pass Road/CA 120.  108 over Sonora Pass is a lot closer than you'd might expect with the diverse terrain and old structures like the Dardenelle Bridge on it. Sherman Pass has the Kern River Canyon, Mount Whitney Overlook, and Nine Mile Canyon.

Really at the end of the day you can't really go wrong with much in the Sierras if you want scenery.  The freeway and expreeway routes can be incredibly boring but general still offer some fantastic view points.  I'd probably say 88 has the best balance of the three criteria I listed above, ease of travel, scenery, and not fall asleep at the wheel levels of road engagement without being too threatening.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Inyomono395 on January 01, 2017, 02:04:53 PM
Were there ever plans for horseshoe meadows road to be CA 190?
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Max Rockatansky on January 01, 2017, 03:09:07 PM
Were there ever plans for horseshoe meadows road to be CA 190?

It would seem that it would have been absorbed had 190 been built to US 395 over the Sierras:

http://www.cahighways.org/185-192.html#190
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: kkt on January 05, 2017, 01:39:38 PM
Here's a question.  Of the Trans-Sierra Routes that do exist.  Which is the best on in terms of scenery and driving experience?

Sonora and Ebbetts Passes' big plus from my point of view is that the big RVs and trailers don't use them...
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Max Rockatansky on January 05, 2017, 02:25:42 PM
Here's a question.  Of the Trans-Sierra Routes that do exist.  Which is the best on in terms of scenery and driving experience?

Sonora and Ebbetts Passes' big plus from my point of view is that the big RVs and trailers don't use them...

I would be amusing to watch someone try though.  I think a short length RV might make it if it had a diesel.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: coatimundi on January 05, 2017, 06:48:46 PM
Here's a question.  Of the Trans-Sierra Routes that do exist.  Which is the best on in terms of scenery and driving experience?

Tioga Pass/120, yeah. As long as you're okay paying the exorbitant park entrance fee.
I would put Sonora over Ebbetts after that, but I think they're pretty similar.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Quillz on January 08, 2017, 02:59:34 AM
Visited Pinnacles for the first time today. CA-146 has no physical connection within the park itself. The eastern entrance seems to be better developed and more popular. The western segment of CA-146, on the other hand, is single-laned in places and not recommended for larger vehicles. Seems odd to me that the same number was applied to two very different roads (in terms of quality), especially when there is no way to connect them, not even a proposal. All the other routes that have discontinuous segments at least have "on paper" connections.

I did notice the mile markers for the eastern half of CA-146 start at 13, whereas the western half ends around milepost 12. So there isn't even implied mileage through the park itself.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Max Rockatansky on January 08, 2017, 08:11:54 AM
Visited Pinnacles for the first time today. CA-146 has no physical connection within the park itself. The eastern entrance seems to be better developed and more popular. The western segment of CA-146, on the other hand, is single-laned in places and not recommended for larger vehicles. Seems odd to me that the same number was applied to two very different roads (in terms of quality), especially when there is no way to connect them, not even a proposal. All the other routes that have discontinuous segments at least have "on paper" connections.

I did notice the mile markers for the eastern half of CA-146 start at 13, whereas the western half ends around milepost 12. So there isn't even implied mileage through the park itself.

Actually you were hitting some familiar territory for me:

http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19260.msg2195764#new

Basically you hit on what my main question was about the eastern CA 146; specifically where it ends.  From what you said it appears to end at the National Park Boundary meaning that the eastern stub is less than a mile.  On Reply 22 it shows the difference between Pinnacles National Monument and the National Park.  It appears CA 146 on the eastern side ended at what was the Pinnacles Wilderness previously.

Basically both roads were part of LRN 120 and never had an implied connector from the get-go.  I want to say it is the "La Gloria Road" thread, it appears that the Old Pinnacles Trail was part of a previous Spanish horse trail through the Gabilans.  I would imagine that trail above the Balconies Caves probably was part of that older Spanish route.  Also touched on the eastern route on this thread:

http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19417.0

Just out curiosity, how the hell did you get out there with all that rain?  I thought the forecast was bad on my last trip to the western half of Pinnacles, I want to say the Gablian and Diablo Ranges got 2-4 inches of rain yesterday and through the night. 
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Quillz on January 08, 2017, 12:09:28 PM
It was raining when I was driving on CA-25 into the part, and raining when I was walking in the park. But it wasn't all that heavy, at least in the time I was there.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: Max Rockatansky on January 08, 2017, 12:19:40 PM
It was raining when I was driving on CA-25 into the part, and raining when I was walking in the park. But it wasn't all that heavy, at least in the time I was there.

Yeah it was pretty steady up in Fresno where I spent the weekend.  I guess Tulare County had a flood warning through most of the night yesterday.  At least the snow pack will be pretty good this year if this keeps up, should be cool to see how much water comes down Yosemite Falls and if any of these reservoirs fill up. 
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: bing101 on January 08, 2017, 05:47:53 PM
CA-710 gap is the most famous example at I-210 @ CA-134 interchange to connect to I-710 in East LA.
Title: Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
Post by: mrsman on January 16, 2017, 07:38:02 AM
CA-710 gap is the most famous example at I-210 @ CA-134 interchange to connect to I-710 in East LA.

But there are plans to complete this with toll tunnels and whatnot.  Caltrans understands how critical this link is to the metro LA freeway system, even if the neighboring cities (other than Alhambra) don't want this freeway.  The question is whether those plans would ever get approved.

The more rural examples listed upthread will never be connected and probably should be renumbered as two separate highways.