Relinquishing California State Routes & signing portions thereof

[Quillz]

I guess this is a pretty obvious question, but when Caltrans relinquishes a route to a local area, does that mean that section of the numbered highway no longer officially exists?

CA-19, for example, has a few segments that are relinquished. Does that mean CA-19 is officially a segmented route?

[NE2]

What do you mean by "officially a segmented route"? As far as I know, there's no official definition of existence as a numbered highway.

[Quillz]

What do you mean by "officially a segmented route"? As far as I know, there's no official definition of existence as a numbered highway.

Using CA-19 as an example, what I meant was that in between its northern and southern terminus, some segments of the route have been relinquished by Caltrans. What I'm asking is if when this happens, those segments of the route cease to be part of the legal definition, which would then make said route exist in multiple segments.

[NE2]

If you're asking about the legal definition, look up the legal definition! But the legal definition is not the only one - there's also the route as signed, and the route as maintained.

[myosh_tino]

If you're asking about the legal definition, look up the legal definition! But the legal definition is not the only one - there's also the route as signed, and the route as maintained.

I believe when a route is "relinquished" to a local agency (a city or county), maintenance becomes the responsibility of the local agency.  When the CA-85 freeway was opened in 1994, old CA-85 (De Anza Blvd/Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road) was relinquished and turned over to the cities of Cupertino, San Jose and Saratoga.  Caltrans did agree to repave the entire route from Stevens Creek Blvd to CA-9 before turning over the road to the cities.

[NE2]

Yes - that's the definition of "relinquished" - transfer of maintenance.

Quillz is assuming the existence of a One True Definition of a route, which does not exist in the real world.

[Quillz]

If you're asking about the legal definition, look up the legal definition! But the legal definition is not the only one - there's also the route as signed, and the route as maintained.

I believe when a route is "relinquished" to a local agency (a city or county), maintenance becomes the responsibility of the local agency.  When the CA-85 freeway was opened in 1994, old CA-85 (De Anza Blvd/Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road) was relinquished and turned over to the cities of Cupertino, San Jose and Saratoga.  Caltrans did agree to repave the entire route from Stevens Creek Blvd to CA-9 before turning over the road to the cities.

Okay, this is what I was wondering. I was incorrectly assuming that a relinquished section of a route meant that it no longer existed as part of the larger signed highway. Thanks for the info.

[NE2]

As I said, read the legislative description:

(d) (1) Any portion of Route 19 relinquished pursuant to this section shall cease to be a state highway on the effective date of the relinquishment.
   (2) The portion of Route 19 relinquished under paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) may not be considered for future adoption under Section 81.
   (3) For the portion of Route 19 relinquished under paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), the city shall ensure the continuity of traffic flow, including any traffic signal progression, and shall maintain signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 19.
   (e) The relinquished former portions of Route 19 within the Cities of Downey, Long Beach, and Pico Rivera are not state highways and are not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the relinquished former portions of Route 19, the Cities of Downey, Long Beach, and Pico Rivera shall maintain within their respective jurisdictions signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 19.

[TheStranger]

Okay, this is what I was wondering. I was incorrectly assuming that a relinquished section of a route meant that it no longer existed as part of the larger signed highway. Thanks for the info.

It seems this is entirely a case-by-case thing - i.e. old Route 85 (which had been Route 9 pre-1964) in Saratoga is NOT a state route anymore (as 85 was finally placed on the Stevens Creek Freeway when that was built), but some of the newer relinquishments demand continued signage.

This is another case why the Massachusetts approach of route signage/designation not being entirely coincidental with state maintenance would be so much more useful than the legislative definitions in use in California for decades (that force micro-segmenting of routes like Route 19).

[The High Plains Traveler]

If you're asking about the legal definition, look up the legal definition! But the legal definition is not the only one - there's also the route as signed, and the route as maintained.

I believe when a route is "relinquished" to a local agency (a city or county), maintenance becomes the responsibility of the local agency.  When the CA-85 freeway was opened in 1994, old CA-85 (De Anza Blvd/Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road) was relinquished and turned over to the cities of Cupertino, San Jose and Saratoga.  Caltrans did agree to repave the entire route from Stevens Creek Blvd to CA-9 before turning over the road to the cities.

Okay, this is what I was wondering. I was incorrectly assuming that a relinquished section of a route meant that it no longer existed as part of the larger signed highway. Thanks for the info.

I haven't seen it in person, but I was looking at a photo log of the I-105 freeway, and there was a sign pictured at the Lakewood Blvd. exit where the 19 had been removed  and its shadow was quite evident. So, even though the statute requires the cities to which the road is relinquished to maintain route markings, CalTrans removed the marking from the intersecting freeway. Sounds a little like micro-segmenting to me.

[TheStranger]

I haven't seen it in person, but I was looking at a photo log of the I-105 freeway, and there was a sign pictured at the Lakewood Blvd. exit where the 19 had been removed  and its shadow was quite evident. So, even though the statute requires the cities to which the road is relinquished to maintain route markings, CalTrans removed the marking from the intersecting freeway. Sounds a little like micro-segmenting to me.

I've always been of the mind that micro-segmenting is absolutely useless from a navigational standpoint.  Odd gaps between routes when a road exists to connect them are annoying (Route 84 between Livermore and Antioch comes to mind) but inconsistent marking created by legislation doesn't do anyone any favors.

Sacramento has an example of this with Route 160's gap between I-5 in southern Sacramento and the 16th Street Bridge north of downtown - especially when the exit numbers for the ex-US 40 freeway north of downtown STILL reference the relinquished miles!

While the pre-1964 legislative route numbers (for maintenance purposes only) vs. CSAA/ACSC route assignments wasn't a great setup, it at least guaranteed that micro-segmenting wasn't a problem.  I wouldn't mind legislative route definitions if they weren't so pivotal for in-the-field signage.

[cahwyguy]

As part of doing my California Highways site, I monitor the legislative definitions, so I think I can answer this. In the past, they used to actually update the legislative definition to divide it into segments when a portion was relinquished or rerouted. Today... not so much. Instead, they note the authority to relinquish in the legislative definition (as this does require changing the definition), but the actual relinquishment occurs months later after they have done sufficient work on the route for the city/county to accept it. They don't always go back and update the legislative definition (but I note the actual relinquishment on my site, if they bothered to consult me :-)), but rarely they do.

[AndyMax25]

I guess this is a pretty obvious question, but when Caltrans relinquishes a route to a local area, does that mean that section of the numbered highway no longer officially exists?

CA-19, for example, has a few segments that are relinquished. Does that mean CA-19 is officially a segmented route?

Usually when Caltrans relinquishes a route, they remove the route shield from any freeway signage as well.  I assume this is to release them from any liability of ownership from that roadway. 

I just drove the west bound 105 from the beginning of the freeway and noticed something very "District 7ish" (I though about positing this in the Does Caltrans D7 speak English anymore thread).  Approaching Lakewood Blvd (former CA-19), there are 4 original signs that show that the Route 19 shield has been removed.

At the Woodruff Ave overcrossing:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.913413,-118.116417&spn=0.005111,0.01929&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=33.913951,-118.116251&panoid=I1day5DHXHvf5abvzV3CcQ&cbp=12,272.38,,0,2.38

At the Bellflower Blvd overcrossing (you can clearly see the outline of the old shield):
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.91336,-118.125107&spn=0.005111,0.01929&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=33.913363,-118.124999&panoid=tswYtH7BHzunoeWexulthg&cbp=12,271.1,,1,-10.83

At the Clark Ave overcrossing (again you can clearly see the outline of the old shield):
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.913253,-118.133926&spn=0.005111,0.01929&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=33.913252,-118.133817&panoid=fhmswrkwnMHus-PWLWjI5g&cbp=12,271.4,,1,-8.63

And at the gore point, the original sign also had the shield removed:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.913293,-118.135726&spn=0.001418,0.002411&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=33.913263,-118.135635&panoid=EGog-wOqTiHM2RDNe86LlQ&cbp=12,274.85,,0,-21.38

Then, the old signs at the gore point have been replaced with new ones.  For some reason, they put the route 19 shield back on.  Go figure!!!
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.913253,-118.134565&spn=0.001418,0.002411&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=33.913253,-118.135392&panoid=rcZ8vYYZ3gKi_sbVhzF6GA&cbp=12,285.42,,1,-4.6

[DTComposer]

I guess this is a pretty obvious question, but when Caltrans relinquishes a route to a local area, does that mean that section of the numbered highway no longer officially exists?

CA-19, for example, has a few segments that are relinquished. Does that mean CA-19 is officially a segmented route?

Usually when Caltrans relinquishes a route, they remove the route shield from any freeway signage as well.  I assume this is to release them from any liability of ownership from that roadway. 

I would disagree with this. In contrast to your example of CA-19 signage being removed along I-105, on I-405 all of the replaced signage has retained CA-19, and on the remaining old signage, CA-19 has only been removed from one sign.

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8033812,-118.1372141,3a,75y,288.71h,89.16t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sUGSulBh8rEnjrHU_46hphA!2e0
(new signage still showing CA-19)

Relinquished portions of CA-91, CA-107 and CA-2 continue to be signed along I-405 (including new signage), and there are relatively new CA-91 trailblazer signs still posted along Artesia Boulevard in Redondo Beach; CA-39 is still posted along signs on I-210...I could go on and on. Think how many years it took before CA-42 signage was removed (and in the case of I-5, only because the exit itself has been physically removed).

(granted, this may be more about District 7 being lazy and simply replicating old sign layouts rather than putting any thought into the matter)

This is a more recent relinquishment, but CA-82 (the southernmost portion) is still signed from US-101, I-280 and CA-87.

Closer to the original topic, I agree that the idea of relinquishment, while fine for determining who maintains a route, does nothing to help motorists (although many of the routes with relinquished sections no longer serve the original purpose of a signed and numbered state highway anymore). I'd rather see a legislative definition along the lines of:

Route 1 is from:
a) Route 5 in San Juan Capistrano to Route 101 in Oxnard.
-1) The portions of Route 1 within the cities of Dana Point, Newport Beach and Oxnard shall be locally maintained per section x.

And section x has language that specifies that local jurisdictions that maintain state routes are mandated to maintain signage, signal progression, etc.

[andy3175]

I guess this is a pretty obvious question, but when Caltrans relinquishes a route to a local area, does that mean that section of the numbered highway no longer officially exists?

CA-19, for example, has a few segments that are relinquished. Does that mean CA-19 is officially a segmented route?

Usually when Caltrans relinquishes a route, they remove the route shield from any freeway signage as well.  I assume this is to release them from any liability of ownership from that roadway. 

I would disagree with this. In contrast to your example of CA-19 signage being removed along I-105, on I-405 all of the replaced signage has retained CA-19, and on the remaining old signage, CA-19 has only been removed from one sign.

On a related note, it took over 10 years between the official decommissioning of SR 209 (mostly Rosecrans St) and 274 (Balboa Ave) in 2001 and the removal of the route shield from associated freeway guide signs by 2013.

[mrsman]

Yes, we should have touring routes in California.  Even if it's not Caltrans maintained, let's sign the route, but perhaps to make it clear that it's not state maintained, maybe a different color shield.

[NE2]

Yes, we should have touring routes in California.  Even if it's not Caltrans maintained, let's sign the route, but perhaps to make it clear that it's not state maintained, maybe a different color shield.

from http://caltrafficsigns.com/pictures/displayimage.php?album=11&pid=235

Obviously this wouldn't work with modern shields, but replacing the CALIFORNIA with COUNTY or CITY would.

[andy3175]

Yes, we should have touring routes in California.  Even if it's not Caltrans maintained, let's sign the route, but perhaps to make it clear that it's not state maintained, maybe a different color shield.

from http://caltrafficsigns.com/pictures/displayimage.php?album=11&pid=235

Obviously this wouldn't work with modern shields, but replacing the CALIFORNIA with COUNTY or CITY would.

Or you could have a white shield (same spade shape) with green letters/numerals; in effect, "reverse video" of the traditional state highway shield.

[OCGuy81]

Is CA-19 similar to CA-39?  I think this might be another example where portions were relinquished by CalTrans.  You have Beach Blvd, but then there is a significant gap until the highway re-emerges north of the 10

[DTComposer]

They're sorta similar. CA-19 was one continuous route (as signed, even though it's legislatively two routes) from Pasadena to Long Beach, that has had its functionality replaced by I-710 and I-605, so the relinquishments are about cities re-taking a street that no longer needs to be a state highway.

CA-39 has never been a continuous route in the field: originally the section over the San Jose Hills was supposed to be via Hacienda and Colima, now it's supposedly to be Harbor Boulevard, but nothing has ever been signed. However, the functionality of CA-39 still remains, since the alternative parallel routes (I-605 and CA-57) would be a significant detour. North of there, it could be that the relinquishment to Asuza is a sign that Caltrans doesn't ever see the re-opening of the northernmost portion of the route, and therefore the purpose of the route is lost.

[OCGuy81]

Thanks, DTC.  That's good information.

[mrsman]

They're sorta similar. CA-19 was one continuous route (as signed, even though it's legislatively two routes) from Pasadena to Long Beach, that has had its functionality replaced by I-710 and I-605, so the relinquishments are about cities re-taking a street that no longer needs to be a state highway.

CA-39 has never been a continuous route in the field: originally the section over the San Jose Hills was supposed to be via Hacienda and Colima, now it's supposedly to be Harbor Boulevard, but nothing has ever been signed. However, the functionality of CA-39 still remains, since the alternative parallel routes (I-605 and CA-57) would be a significant detour. North of there, it could be that the relinquishment to Asuza is a sign that Caltrans doesn't ever see the re-opening of the northernmost portion of the route, and therefore the purpose of the route is lost.

But the gap between Whittier Blvd. and CA-60 in the old days, while not signed as CA-39, was signed as County Route N9  N8.  So we have a county route signed to make a completion of a state highway where there is no state maintenance.

And as far as CA-19 goes, while I prefer the touring route, I can see where CA-19 is superflous.  First, as you said, it's pretty close to the 605, so it's not needed.  And secondly, CA-19 is one boulevard.  You can drive all the way from the Long Beach Traffic Circle to I-210 without turning at all.  It is just a surface street at this point, no different than Paramount Blvd or Bellflower Blvd except that it goes all the way to the SGV.  But there is no difference in the quality of the road.

CA-42 was removed from Manchester/Firestone, which I find to be no real different from Florence or Imperial Highway, just another arterial street.

[NE2]

But the gap between Whittier Blvd. and CA-60 in the old days, while not signed as CA-39, was signed as County Route N9.  So we have a county route signed to make a completion of a state highway where there is no state maintenance.

Could have been N39 (like J59 and J132).

[TheStranger]

And as far as CA-19 goes, while I prefer the touring route, I can see where CA-19 is superflous.  First, as you said, it's pretty close to the 605, so it's not needed.  And secondly, CA-19 is one boulevard.  You can drive all the way from the Long Beach Traffic Circle to I-210 without turning at all.  It is just a surface street at this point, no different than Paramount Blvd or Bellflower Blvd except that it goes all the way to the SGV.  But there is no difference in the quality of the road.

I would say the section that is legislatively Route 164 (but has never been signed as anything other than Route 19 in its 80 years of existence) still has some independent utility in much the same way that Route 83 does out in the Inland Empire - major arterial with no nearby freeway alternates.  South of Pico Rivera, 605 has indeed supplanted that half of the corridor.

CA-42 was removed from Manchester/Firestone, which I find to be no real different from Florence or Imperial Highway, just another arterial street.

It was removed specifically as a result of 105 being built (though it remained signed for years after the completion of the Century Freeway).

[mrsman]

And as far as CA-19 goes, while I prefer the touring route, I can see where CA-19 is superflous.  First, as you said, it's pretty close to the 605, so it's not needed.  And secondly, CA-19 is one boulevard.  You can drive all the way from the Long Beach Traffic Circle to I-210 without turning at all.  It is just a surface street at this point, no different than Paramount Blvd or Bellflower Blvd except that it goes all the way to the SGV.  But there is no difference in the quality of the road.

I would say the section that is legislatively Route 164 (but has never been signed as anything other than Route 19 in its 80 years of existence) still has some independent utility in much the same way that Route 83 does out in the Inland Empire - major arterial with no nearby freeway alternates.  South of Pico Rivera, 605 has indeed supplanted that half of the corridor.

CA-42 was removed from Manchester/Firestone, which I find to be no real different from Florence or Imperial Highway, just another arterial street.

It was removed specifically as a result of 105 being built (though it remained signed for years after the completion of the Century Freeway).

In our more urban areas, like Metro LA, there is no real need for a signed arterial for many of the routes that used to be signed.  The only highways that really need signed are freeways, and inter-regional routes, or perhaps following a route with lots of twists and turns.

So for the areas where CA-1 is relinquished, absolutely sign it as a touring route, because of its importance in navigation.

But I'm not going to cry over losing CA-213 Western Ave or CA-187 Venice Blvd or CA-170 Highland Ave.  These are wasted designations IMO.  I'd much rather have a designation to cover the semi-freeway La Cienega Blvd over the Baldwin Hills.