Relinquishing California State Routes & signing portions thereof

[mrsman]

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

Could have been N39 (like J59 and J132).

I agree, it would have been easier to follow and that's the whole point of signing highways IMO.  It should be primarily to help with navigation.

And I made a mistake in my earlier post, it's N8 (N9 is Kanan-Dume Rd in Malibu).  It if it was N39, I would not have gotten it wrong.

[DTComposer]

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

La Cienega is the traversable routing for that portion of CA-170. The Highland Avenue portion (CA-2 to US-101) has already been relinquished.

The problem with signing La Cienega is that it's an expressway in the middle, but on each end it's a busy arterial that will only become more congested if it's signed as an alternate route between LAX and Hollywood/Fairfax/etc. If the expressway section could be extended on both ends (to I-10 and I-405) then absolutely sign it.

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

Could have been N39 (like J59 and J132).

I agree, it would have been easier to follow and that's the whole point of signing highways IMO.  It should be primarily to help with navigation.

And I made a mistake in my earlier post, it's N8 (N9 is Kanan-Dume Rd in Malibu).  It if it was N39, I would not have gotten it wrong.

N8 is La Mirada Boulevard to Colima Road - the original CA-39 traversable routing was Hacienda to Colima (Hacienda being a much windier route, FWIW), so N8 wasn't signed totally on top of CA-39.

That said, yes, using county (or city) markers could help from a navigational standpoint - but California is not really all that good at signing county routes in the field, so they're not really familiar to the majority of drivers. I think it would be easier to go with a modified state shield (with the inverted colors, perhaps).

[bing101]

Why is there a CA-123 San Pablo blvd in Richmond, San Pablo and El Cerrito. It's just an arterial that parallels to I-80 in the East Bay. Also CA-141 in Vallejo became a city road at some point once I-780 came into play. Ca-262 in Fremont or Milpitas a short road.

[bing101]

How about CA-61 Oakland it still exists due to the proposed Southern Crossing to Candlestick Park near US-101. I heard of CA-61 was supposed to be a Bridge or Tunnel from Oakland to Brisbane,Ca. But that never came into play.

[bing101]

Also CA-275 was an unsigned state route between US-50 to the State Capital in Sacramento but West Sacramento has CA-275 as a city route and city managed.

[NE2]

also I want some of what you're smoking

[JustDrive]

Technically La Tijera/La Cienega is signed as an alternate from the 405 to the 10 East, and it gets ridiculously congested at the south end.  And La Brea Avenue to the east has a BGS pointing to Hollywood at the five-way intersection with Stocker Street and Overhill Drive.  I doubt La Brea (which is just west of Highland) might have been an original routing for 170, though.

[ZLoth]

Mod Note: The topic "Signing of relinquished portions of California state routes" was split out from the "US-30 in California...wait, what?" thread.  --Roadfro

The only exception to this would be where roads are multiplexed, but only one road is signed in the multiplexed section. An example is US 40 multiplexed with I-70 for a large portion of rural Colorado.  US 40 is part of this road, but it is generally only signed as I-70.  Yet, if someone wanted to follow US 40 from Utah to Kansas, you would need to know that you have to stay on I-70 for many miles, without a US 40 reassurance.  There, the US 40 designation may be helpful on a map or Google maps.

Whether they should be signed on the streets is a different question.  I've felt that Biz-80 was confusing and that signing the W-X as US 50 and the 29-30 as CA-51 would be best.  But it must be singed that way on the highway before we see it signed that way on any map for the use of the general public.

Thats why bothers me when California insisting on removing state-signed routes through cities. The purpose is to remove state fiscal responsibility for maintaining the routes, but come on now. Not even a "To" marker. It's gets worse in Southern California when you have routes switching from CA-XXX to Interstate-XXX. Heck, it still irks me that they removed CA-160 from downtown Sacramento.

As for Business 80... there is actual historical significance as the route was originally Interstate 80 that went through Sacramento until ~1981 when they aborted the construction project and converted the existing section into a light rail station. A portion of that was even flagged TEMP-Interstate 80 because that portion is not up to Interstate standards for curves and exits. That convoluted history can be found elsewhere. And, as we all know, Business Routes do not need to meet Interstate standards.

[mrsman]

The only exception to this would be where roads are multiplexed, but only one road is signed in the multiplexed section. An example is US 40 multiplexed with I-70 for a large portion of rural Colorado.  US 40 is part of this road, but it is generally only signed as I-70.  Yet, if someone wanted to follow US 40 from Utah to Kansas, you would need to know that you have to stay on I-70 for many miles, without a US 40 reassurance.  There, the US 40 designation may be helpful on a map or Google maps.

Whether they should be signed on the streets is a different question.  I've felt that Biz-80 was confusing and that signing the W-X as US 50 and the 29-30 as CA-51 would be best.  But it must be singed that way on the highway before we see it signed that way on any map for the use of the general public.

Thats why bothers me when California insisting on removing state-signed routes through cities. The purpose is to remove state fiscal responsibility for maintaining the routes, but come on now. Not even a "To" marker. It's gets worse in Southern California when you have routes switching from CA-XXX to Interstate-XXX. Heck, it still irks me that they removed CA-160 from downtown Sacramento.

As for Business 80... there is actual historical significance as the route was originally Interstate 80 that went through Sacramento until ~1981 when they aborted the construction project and converted the existing section into a light rail station. A portion of that was even flagged TEMP-Interstate 80 because that portion is not up to Interstate standards for curves and exits. That convoluted history can be found elsewhere. And, as we all know, Business Routes do not need to meet Interstate standards.

I agree, it would be nice if CA signed touring routes, even if they are no longer maintained by Caltrans.  But keeping an old designation on a map is not helpful if the designation is removed from the field.

CA-160: it's a freeway connection to the north, it's a state rural road down to Rio Vista to the south, but no connection in the middle.  A shame.

[TheStranger]

CA-160: it's a freeway connection to the north, it's a state rural road down to Rio Vista to the south, but no connection in the middle.  A shame.

What I find strange is that there is precedent for new routes being created due to route gaps being left unfinished (Route 211 being assigned to the northernmost and only constructed portion of the never-finished Route 1 Lost Coast extension), yet the current standard is to have no continuity if cities decide to take on former state-maintained corridors.

The 160 freeway spur in North Sacramento should really be given its own number (and the rural section of 160 should have a logical north terminus at the Pocket Road interchange with I-5, not at the Sacramento city limit just south of the junction).

[Bickendan]

CalTrans should have mandated that cities taking the relinquished portions of routes maintain reassurance signs, whether by a county route marker or using the miner's spade with the city name instead of 'California'. Or hell, even a blue miner's spade.

[NE2]

CalTrans should have mandated that cities taking the relinquished portions of routes maintain reassurance signs, whether by a county route marker or using the miner's spade with the city name instead of 'California'. Or hell, even a blue miner's spade.

The state legislature did mandate that the cities maintain signs. Didn't happen.

[mrsman]

CalTrans should have mandated that cities taking the relinquished portions of routes maintain reassurance signs, whether by a county route marker or using the miner's spade with the city name instead of 'California'. Or hell, even a blue miner's spade.

The state legislature did mandate that the cities maintain signs. Didn't happen.

Are you saying that there is a state law that requires cities to maintain the state highway shield on roads they maintain.  I.e. in the example that we're discussing, the City of Sacramento would have to pay to keep CA-160 signs on 16th Street?

This really shouldn't be that hard.  If you just simply didn't touch the signs that used to be there, there would be enough signs to guide the public without the need for new signs.  But it  seems that Caltrans is actively removing the signs. Which is why we have signage gaps.

[dfwmapper]

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=shc&group=00001-01000&file=300-635

460.  (a) Route 160 is from:
   (1) Route 4 near Antioch to the southern city limits of Sacramento.
   (2) The American River in the City of Sacramento to Route 51.
   (b) The relinquished former portion of Route 160 within the City of Sacramento is not a state highway and is not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the relinquished former portion of Route 160, the City of Sacramento shall maintain signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 160.

[mrsman]

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=shc&group=00001-01000&file=300-635

460.  (a) Route 160 is from:
   (1) Route 4 near Antioch to the southern city limits of Sacramento.
   (2) The American River in the City of Sacramento to Route 51.
   (b) The relinquished former portion of Route 160 within the City of Sacramento is not a state highway and is not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the relinquished former portion of Route 160, the City of Sacramento shall maintain signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 160.

Yet despite the law, we see things like this:

http://goo.gl/maps/1pJ5j

And I know when I lived in the area in the late 90's that CA-160 was very well signed thru Downtown Sacramento, even through the turns:

Southbound_ 12th to F to 15th to Broadway to Freeport.
Northbound: Freeport to 21st to Broadway to 16th.

If the city just left the signs alone, it would be great.  What happened, did Caltrans take away the signs when they abandoned maintenance?  Why not just leave the signs where they were, they were perfectly fine.

So the abandonment of signing is very frustrating.

[TheStranger]

What happened, did Caltrans take away the signs when they abandoned maintenance? 

For the few years that the button copy signs remained up for the 15th/16th Street exit on the WX Freeway section of 50/Business 80/99...the 160 shields were scraped off both eastbound and westbound on there.  (Signs replaced in the last 3-4 years with retroreflective ones)

[The High Plains Traveler]

This topic led me to look at Daniel Faigin's CaHighways.org web site to provide an explanation for my seeming inability to navigate CA-79 between Beaumont and Hemet last week. Sure enough, the portion in San Jacinto is relinquished, and the portion in Hemet is available to be relinquished - subject, of course, to marking the old route through the cities. Well, I did catch the first left turn onto Ramona Parkway with the one route marker at the last second, but never saw the point where 79 turned off of that. Because (verified by GSV) it wasn't marked. Fortunately, Ramona Parkway runs into CA-74, so missing the turn just meant a couple of miles extra.

I'm not sure if I like the "touring route" concept, but where pieces of state highways are turned back to local entities, there needs to be some kind of standardized marker; even if different from the standard state route marker.

[mrsman]

I believe that Caltrans should do the following whenever a state route is to be considered up for relinquishment:

Why is this highway being relinquished?

a) If the state highway is bypasses by a new highway or freeway, then the old route can be demapped and the highway number signs can be removed.  [We don't need CA-42 along Firestone/Manchester when we have a brand new I-105 freeway a couple miles to the south.]

b) If the highway passes through a city and the city wants local control of maintenance, but traffic is still routed through the highway, then we need to have some way of navigation.  Either put up signs that say "End Caltrans maintenance" and "Begin Caltrans maintenance" or put up different looking signs of the same number (blue miner spades) or renumber the highway "CA-79R".  This is especially important where the state highway makes a significant turn along its route.  It doesn't do anybody any good for drivers to get lost when following an old map just becuase the highway is now locally maintained.

c) If the highway passes through a large stretch of city and there are no significant turns along the route, then the route can be demapped completely or significantly truncated.  A good example of this is CA-19.  Lakewood/Rosemead is a very long straight street.  Functionally, it's no different than nearby Bellflower Blvd or Paramount Blvd.  Once you're on Lakewood/Rosemead you can pretty much follow the old routing of CA-19 just by sticking to the road.  The state number is completely unnecessary except for highway nostalgia.  Similarly CA-213 Western Ave, CA-107 Hawthorne Blvd, CA-187 Venice Blvd.  Heck, the only surface streets in the LA basin that should still be signed as a state highway, IMO are CA-1, CA-110 along Arroyo Parkway in Pasadena, CA-126 west of I-5, CA-27 south of US 101, CA-39 north of I-210, CA-2 between 2 freeway and US 101, and CA-22 between I-405 and CA-1

d) For stretches like CA-160 and CA-90 the two remaining state maintained sections are now functionally different roads.  The orphaned portion should probably be renumbered.  As TheStranger earlier suggested, CA-160 should end at Pocket/I-5 and the CA-160 freeway can be renumbered.  Similarly, CA-90 should exist along Imperial highway east of I-605, and the Marina Freeway should be renumbered.

[TheStranger]

c) If the highway passes through a large stretch of city and there are no significant turns along the route, then the route can be demapped completely or significantly truncated.

I don't know if I agree with this in all cases - certainly the unsigned Route 164 section of Route 19 is still independent enough to be different from any of the nearby freeway routings, and further north, and Route 238 is entirely a suburban arterial but an important one through Fremont and Hayward (especially with the freeway bypass proposal being nixed over time).

I do get why Route 82 south of I-880 in San Jose is no longer a state highway though.

[emory]

CA-160: it's a freeway connection to the north, it's a state rural road down to Rio Vista to the south, but no connection in the middle.  A shame.

What I find strange is that there is precedent for new routes being created due to route gaps being left unfinished (Route 211 being assigned to the northernmost and only constructed portion of the never-finished Route 1 Lost Coast extension), yet the current standard is to have no continuity if cities decide to take on former state-maintained corridors.

The 160 freeway spur in North Sacramento should really be given its own number (and the rural section of 160 should have a logical north terminus at the Pocket Road interchange with I-5, not at the Sacramento city limit just south of the junction).

It's one thing to create a new alignment for a route that has technically already been completed like Route 1 has. It's another if Caltrans simply wants to get a highway off the SHS, which they do want to for nearly all the conventional highways they maintain, and as soon as possible. If the state could, they would unload all of Route 160 that isn't a freeway onto the local municipalities, but they're not all ready to add another roadway to their maintenance list, so the state can't force them to take the roads.

[TheStranger]

It's another if Caltrans simply wants to get a highway off the SHS, which they do want to for nearly all the conventional highways they maintain, and as soon as possible. If the state could, they would unload all of Route 160 that isn't a freeway onto the local municipalities, but they're not all ready to add another roadway to their maintenance list, so the state can't force them to take the roads.

Is this more for "conventional highways within urbanized areas" though?  In 160's case, the section from Freeport to Antioch has navigational value (and is signed much better than the parallel 84 corridor) and I don't think there's been any push to have the small towns along the Sacramento River Delta take over maintenance on that portion of the route.

[ZLoth]

Last week, I drove down CA-84 from the IKEA in Sacramento to Rio Vista. There was no CA-84 reassurance marker until the intersection of CA-84 and CA-220. There was NO sign at the corner of Jefferson Road and Courtland Road indicating that I needed to turn right to continue on CA-84. In checking Google Streetview, that appears to be true since at least 2008, and I suspect much longer.

[TheStranger]

Last week, I drove down CA-84 from the IKEA in Sacramento to Rio Vista. There was no CA-84 reassurance marker until the intersection of CA-84 and CA-220. There was NO sign at the corner of Jefferson Road and Courtland Road indicating that I needed to turn right to continue on CA-84. In checking Google Streetview, that appears to be true since at least 2008, and I suspect much longer.

I know that Route 84 within the West Sacramento city limits has been relinquished for a few years now - though not sure there were ever 84 signs along that area to begin with. 

[Indyroads]

California (as well as other states) need to have a way of signing relinquished portions of state highways, state roads or state routes, especially in a case where the relinquished portion creates a "gap". CA-160 and CA-1 are great examples of this. Once a state desides to relinquish a route from its inventory then the signage should be changed to city or county signage. Florida already has a practice in place to place a letter "C-" in front of the route number. Granted the county signage is somewhat "unconventional" but it works especially in cases where the road is prominent but no longer warrants state route classification.

In indiana this is also a major issue.. Indiana also needs a system of county highways, and their roads are in horrible shape but those issues will be discussed elsewhere.

I do like how the city of Winnipeg has a system of city routes which greatly aid in wayfinding through the city and could be an example for other cities to use in helping people find their way. Other cities have done similar plans such as Pittsburgh's belt system and the charlotte highway 4. I even came up with a plan for Indianapolis to use with a special route marker, but I haven't posted it as of yet.

California should post signs at the end of state maintenance as are in some other states

Example:


Along with a city version of the route marker (white shield with black markings and the word city at the top) to denote that it is a city route not a california route. Begin state maintenance signs could be used with a green reassurance marker to resume the routing. For california highways that are being relinquished in their entirety (or truncated) these should be converted to the county highways program instead, and signed as such.

[NE2]

Florida already has a practice in place to place a letter "C-" in front of the route number.

Only 30+ years ago. Now they use normal county shields.