Relinquishing California State Routes & signing portions thereof

[flowmotion]

I don't see the point in inventing a new style of shield (or adding a R) for this sort of thing, as the motorist doesn't really care who is maintaining the route. Either use the county pentagon marker, or just leave the green spades up.

[emory]

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

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

And in Florida it's more common for major local thoroughfares to get relinquished to the county, hence the frequent use of pentagon shields, whereas in California the cities take them over.

[Atomica]

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 could it be a coloured square or box sign, with a NON-DIECUT white spade, with a colour-coordinated number, perhaps green, blue, or even black box with white spade and matching number?  Even my avatar poses that possibility...

[Atomica]

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

I think blue and gold was a rejected colour scheme for the California route marker in 1964.  Your idea of a different coloured miner's spade is a good idea.
I think that a non-die-cut marker -with a solid box carrying a contrasting spade and the number coloured like the box - might be such a solution.
Suppose a green, blue, or black box with a white spade and a colour-matched number - maybe even like my avatar - could be used for such a situation. 

[The High Plains Traveler]

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

I think blue and gold was a rejected colour scheme for the California route marker in 1964.  Your idea of a different coloured miner's spade is a good idea.
I think that a non-die-cut marker -with a solid box carrying a contrasting spade and the number coloured like the box - might be such a solution.
Suppose a green, blue, or black box with a white spade and a colour-matched number - maybe even like my avatar - could be used for such a situation. 

How about the green spade without the state name, inside a yellow or white rectangle and the words "CITY MAINT." in small text below.

[mrsman]

Or could it be a coloured square or box sign, with a NON-DIECUT white spade, with a colour-coordinated number, perhaps green, blue, or even black box with white spade and matching number?  Even my avatar poses that possibility...

No, one nice thing about CA signage is that they go through the effort of cutting out the signs on US and miner spade shields. Let's not go backwards.  I think that a simple "county maintained" banner would be better. Besides, at that point, there would be no need to remove the existing miner spade shields.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.568759,-121.102929,3a,75y,144.17h,54.14t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s_hpg_tSXoDn_8CgDdY7kSA!2e0

[mrsman]

I know this thread started as a split from another thread, but now it seems that the two "relinquishing" threads are covering the same subject matter and should probably be merged.


Good idea, mrsman. Topics merged with new thread title. --roadfro

[Quillz]

I don't see the point in inventing a new style of shield (or adding a R) for this sort of thing, as the motorist doesn't really care who is maintaining the route. Either use the county pentagon marker, or just leave the green spades up.

This is something I have always agreed with. A motorist isn't going to care about a legal definition, or who maintains what section of what highway. All they want to know is that the route exists and can be easily followed. Thus, regardless of if Caltrans maintains a highway or not, regardless of if a section is relinquished or not, the highway should be signed. IMO, navigation is the most important purpose of a highway shield, not letting you know that it's state maintained.

[Occidental Tourist]

This is something I have always agreed with. A motorist isn't going to care about a legal definition, or who maintains what section of what highway. All they want to know is that the route exists and can be easily followed. Thus, regardless of if Caltrans maintains a highway or not, regardless of if a section is relinquished or not, the highway should be signed. IMO, navigation is the most important purpose of a highway shield, not letting you know that it's state maintained.

But from a legal liability perspective, there's got to be something obvious to inform who is maintaining the roadway, i.e., the state or a local jurisdiction.  The reason is that if someone is injured on a roadway due to negligence (bad sightlines, improperly maintained roadway, lack of proper safety features, hidden dangerous condition), they have to have adequate notice of who has liability for the property condition so they can sue the proper party. 

In California you have a very limited window to sue a government agency, and you have to make a claim to the proper agency before you sue.  That claim must also be filed within a relatively short period of time after the injury occurred.  For personal injury claims that time limit usually six months.  And the government agency can delay as much as it wants in responding to the initial claim; there's no penalty for it sitting on a claim and not responding.

So imagine a scenario where someone gets injured on a roadway that has a state shield.  They go out and find an attorney, the attorney makes the requisite pre-lawsuit claim to the state because he reasonably thinks the roadway is maintained by Caltrans.  The state takes its time responding and eventually tells the attorney, "Claim denied: this isn't our roadway.  Despite the state highway shield, it's maintained by the county or the city."   The attorney then finds out who the actual local agency with jurisdiction is, and files a claim more than six months after the injury with that agency. 

Under the law, even though the attorney might have been reasonable in believing the roadway was maintained by the state because of the state shield, the lawsuit would still be barred because the claim was filed outside the six-month period.

[Quillz]

Good points, ones I didn't consider.

Someone else here suggesting using different colored shields. Maybe something like that could work.

[DTComposer]

This is something I have always agreed with. A motorist isn't going to care about a legal definition, or who maintains what section of what highway. All they want to know is that the route exists and can be easily followed. Thus, regardless of if Caltrans maintains a highway or not, regardless of if a section is relinquished or not, the highway should be signed. IMO, navigation is the most important purpose of a highway shield, not letting you know that it's state maintained.

But from a legal liability perspective, there's got to be something obvious to inform who is maintaining the roadway, i.e., the state or a local jurisdiction.  The reason is that if someone is injured on a roadway due to negligence (bad sightlines, improperly maintained roadway, lack of proper safety features, hidden dangerous condition), they have to have adequate notice of who has liability for the property condition so they can sue the proper party. 

In California you have a very limited window to sue a government agency, and you have to make a claim to the proper agency before you sue.  That claim must also be filed within a relatively short period of time after the injury occurred.  For personal injury claims that time limit usually six months.  And the government agency can delay as much as it wants in responding to the initial claim; there's no penalty for it sitting on a claim and not responding.

So imagine a scenario where someone gets injured on a roadway that has a state shield.  They go out and find an attorney, the attorney makes the requisite pre-lawsuit claim to the state because he reasonably thinks the roadway is maintained by Caltrans.  The state takes its time responding and eventually tells the attorney, "Claim denied: this isn't our roadway.  Despite the state highway shield, it's maintained by the county or the city."   The attorney then finds out who the actual local agency with jurisdiction is, and files a claim more than six months after the injury with that agency. 

Under the law, even though the attorney might have been reasonable in believing the roadway was maintained by the state because of the state shield, the lawsuit would still be barred because the claim was filed outside the six-month period.

I agree with this in principle, but the reality is that there are many stretches of state-maintained roadway that are inconsistently signed, and many stretches of relinquished roadway that are still signed, years after the fact, including new signs having been posted after the relinquishment (CA-91 signs along Artesia Boulevard, for example). So your example could work in reverse - someone has a negligence claim on Mission Boulevard at Warm Springs in Fremont - that's CA-262, but there's no signage at all on that route, let alone "obvious" signage, so the lawyer reasonably assumes the road's maintained by the City of Fremont.

Also, segments of routes that get relinquished are supposed to have posted "signs directing motorists to the continuation" of the route. I assume this means that "TO" signs are posted above the shields, and arrows below, but I have yet to see that done in the field - either the signs are left as is, or they're removed completely.

I'm nowhere near being a lawyer, but it seems to me a lawyer would do their due diligence in researching who owns the road - county, state or city - regardless of what may or may not be posted in the field - before filing a claim.

[emory]

In recent relinquishment related news, the city of Coronado wants to take over CA 282: http://www.ecoronado.com/profiles/blogs/state-route-282-relinquishment-under-consideration-210320152255 , and the Santa Clara Valley counties are still trying to figure out if they really want to take over CA 82 from I-880 to CA 84: http://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=2013&MediaPosition=&ID=4798&CssClass= .

[flowmotion]

In my opinionated opinion, anything implying "Highway Shields are really an Inventory System" is a flawed premise. Marked routes should only exist to assist the traveler to a destination, nothing more, nothing less. Too many highway bureaucrats forget the signs are posted there for the public, not their shoddy databases.

If there is a requirement for ownership indicator, just put a small marker at the bottom of the pole.  No need for some fabulous new sign design.

[Quillz]

In my opinionated opinion, anything implying "Highway Shields are really an Inventory System" is a flawed premise. Marked routes should only exist to assist the traveler to a destination, nothing more, nothing less. Too many highway bureaucrats forget the signs are posted there for the public, not their shoddy databases.

If there is a requirement for ownership indicator, just put a small marker at the bottom of the pole.  No need for some fabulous new sign design.

Reminds me of the original bear shields, which had the Auto Club logo on them.

[roadfro]

In my opinionated opinion, anything implying "Highway Shields are really an Inventory System" is a flawed premise. Marked routes should only exist to assist the traveler to a destination, nothing more, nothing less. Too many highway bureaucrats forget the signs are posted there for the public, not their shoddy databases.

Tell this to the states that assign overlapping state route numbers to Interstate and US Routes, then feel compelled to post the redundant state route shields at junction assemblies, etc.

[Occidental Tourist]

In my opinionated opinion, anything implying "Highway Shields are really an Inventory System" is a flawed premise. Marked routes should only exist to assist the traveler to a destination, nothing more, nothing less. Too many highway bureaucrats forget the signs are posted there for the public, not their shoddy databases.

If there is a requirement for ownership indicator, just put a small marker at the bottom of the pole.  No need for some fabulous new sign design.

I agree with this approach, and if Caltrans or local agencies could consistently sign the discontinuities, they should do so.  I've seen lots of states that have these kind of signs, e.g., "This road maintained by the State," or "This road locally maintained."

Of course, I regularly commute through Long Beach, where Caltrans can't figure out how or if it wants to still sign the relinquished portions of SR-19.  And city governments can be even worse in their inconsistencies.  So I'm skeptical that such a system could be implemented in a less-flawed manner in this state than the current highly-flawed signing system they use now.

[flowmotion]

Of course, I regularly commute through Long Beach, where Caltrans can't figure out how or if it wants to still sign the relinquished portions of SR-19.  And city governments can be even worse in their inconsistencies.  So I'm skeptical that such a system could be implemented in a less-flawed manner in this state than the current highly-flawed signing system they use now.

That gets back to the original post. CA-19 is now a mostly pointless feature of the state highway system, and the only reason it's signed at all is "Inventory Control". If I were Caltrans Dictator, I would tear down all the 19 signs and use "Begin/End State Maintenance" on the non-relinquished portions, if it is bureaucratically required.

Part of the reason this thread has lasted as long as it has is because people are going around in circles on "Should we sign routes nobody cares about?". Which in my opinon is "NO!".

[emory]

Part of the reason this thread has lasted as long as it has is because people are going around in circles on "Should we sign routes nobody cares about?". Which in my opinon is "NO!".

And yet CA 14U is VERY well signed!

[emory]

Between Lake Elsinore, Hemet, and Riverside County, a big piece of CA 74 is not far away from leaving the SHS. Notably this stretch:



The portion in Perris is already off the system.

[andy3175]

Between Lake Elsinore, Hemet, and Riverside County, a big piece of CA 74 is not far away from leaving the SHS. Notably this stretch:



The portion in Perris is already off the system.

Much of SR 79 along Winchester Road (north of Hemet) is already off the state highway system. How did you find out all of SR 74 from Lake Elsinore east to Canyon Lake and Hemet is to be removed as well? Is there any news on moving SR 79 onto all of Sanderson Avenue? Or is SR 79 also going to be removed from the state highway system in Hemet and San Jacinto?

[emory]

Sorry. I haven't been to this forum in a while.

Riverside County has arguing about their segment of Route 74 for a while but it looks like they're finally getting closer to controlling it as per this article: http://myvalleynews.com/regional-news/bill-to-give-county-control-of-state-highway-clears-committee/ . The Lake Elsinore and Hemet sections are noted in the SHC.

Also, looks like the portion of Route 1 from Santa Monica to the 105 as well as all of Route 187 are going up for relinquishment. Both are in the City of Los Angeles. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/asm/ab_0801-0850/ab_810_bill_20150420_amended_asm_v98.html

(h) Upon a determination by the commission that it is in the best
interest of the state to do so, the commission may, upon terms and
conditions approved by it, relinquish to the City of Los Angeles the
portion of Route 1 within the city between the southern city limit of
the City of Santa Monica (approximately postmile 33.3) and Route 105
(approximately postmile 25.9), if the department and the City of Los
Angeles enter into an agreement providing for that relinquishment.
The following conditions shall apply upon relinquishment: 
   (1) The relinquishment shall become effective on the date
following the county recorder's recordation of the relinquishment
resolution containing the commission's approval of the terms and
conditions of the relinquishment. 
   (2) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, the
relinquished portion of Route 1 shall cease to be a state highway.

   (3) The portion of Route 1 relinquished under this subdivision
shall be ineligible for future adoption under Section 81.
   (4) The City of Los Angeles shall ensure the continuity of traffic
flow on the relinquished portion of Route 1, including any traffic
signal progression, to the extent applicable. 
   (5) For the portion of Route 1 relinquished under this
subdivision, the City of Los Angeles shall install and maintain
within its jurisdiction, signs directing motorists to the
continuation of Route 1 to the extent deemed necessary by the
department.

(b) Upon a determination by the commission that it is in the best
interest of the state to do so, the commission may, upon terms and
conditions approved by it, relinquish to the City of Los Angeles
Route 187 within the city between the route's western terminus at
Lincoln Boulevard (approximately postmile 3.5) and its eastern
terminus at Cadillac Avenue near Route 10 (approximately postmile
8.9), if the department and the city enter into an agreement
providing for that relinquishment. The following conditions shall
apply upon relinquishment: 
   (1) The relinquishment shall become effective on the date
following the county recorder's recordation of the relinquishment
resolution containing the commission's approval of the terms and
conditions of the relinquishment. 
   (2) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, Route
187 shall cease to be a state highway. 
   (3) Route 187, as relinquished under this subdivision, shall be
ineligible for future adoption under Section 81. 

[jwolfer]

Or could it be a coloured square or box sign, with a NON-DIECUT white spade, with a colour-coordinated number, perhaps green, blue, or even black box with white spade and matching number?  Even my avatar poses that possibility...

No, one nice thing about CA signage is that they go through the effort of cutting out the signs on US and miner spade shields. Let's not go backwards.  I think that a simple "county maintained" banner would be better. Besides, at that point, there would be no need to remove the existing miner spade shields.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.568759,-121.102929,3a,75y,144.17h,54.14t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s_hpg_tSXoDn_8CgDdY7kSA!2e0

Sort of like when Florida offloaded all the state secondary routes to Counties in 1977.  A "C" was slapped over the "S" and a "COUNTY" sticker on the bottom.

Very few are left now, mostly rural areas. Most are now pentagons

[mrsman]

Very interesting to read about the relinquishments along CA 74 and CA 79.  I believe it is a first, since all previous relinquishments have occurred within cities.  This one is along rural roads between cities such as Perris and Hemet.

[emory]

Very interesting to read about the relinquishments along CA 74 and CA 79.  I believe it is a first, since all previous relinquishments have occurred within cities.  This one is along rural roads between cities such as Perris and Hemet.

Relinquishing to counties is still common if the segment of the state highway is in an unincorporated portion of said county. Another current example is Caltrans wants to relinquish all of Route 86 south of Fredricks Road near Route 78. The portions that aren't going to the cities of Brawley, Imperial and El Centro are going to Imperial County.

[The High Plains Traveler]

Very interesting to read about the relinquishments along CA 74 and CA 79.  I believe it is a first, since all previous relinquishments have occurred within cities.  This one is along rural roads between cities such as Perris and Hemet.

Relinquishing to counties is still common if the segment of the state highway is in an unincorporated portion of said county. Another current example is Caltrans wants to relinquish all of Route 86 south of Fredricks Road near Route 78. The portions that aren't going to the cities of Brawley, Imperial and El Centro are going to Imperial County.

If they do that, the CA-86 designation should replace 111 south of Brawley. Otherwise, the most direct and most improved route from I-8 to Indio has three designations.