CA-1 Relinquishment in Santa Monica

[AndyMax25]

Recently, CA-1 was relinquished within the City of Santa Monica. As a result all CA-1 shield have been removed from the roadway.  New trailblazer "TO" signs will be installed in the near future.

CA-2 was also relinquished many years ago.  As a result, a historic sign showing the junction of CA-1 and CA-2 was removed from the intersection of the I-10 eastbound off-ramp at Lincoln Blvd.  This is one of the very rare places where 2 numerically consecutive state routes intersect.

Also there are some cool instances where the numerical opposites intersect such as CA-91 and CA-19 (Lakewood Blvd) in the City of Bellflower.

The picture below is of the sign with staff from the Signs & Markings Shop at the City of Santa Monica City Yards.  The sign will be hung in the shop.

[NE2]

Why can't they leave well enough alone and continue to sign it as SR 1?

[AsphaltPlanet]

What a shame.

[agentsteel53]

Recently, CA-1 was relinquished within the City of Santa Monica.

okay.

As a result all CA-1 shield have been removed from the roadway.

huh?

New trailblazer "TO" signs will be installed in the near future.

that doesn't sound like a good use of taxpayer money.

I've noted this before many times: the average driver does not give a singular rat's ass who maintains a road.  they're using route numbers for navigation.  the only logical solution to this non-problem is to leave CA-1 signed precisely the way it always has been.

[TheStranger]

I've noted this before many times: the average driver does not give a singular rat's ass who maintains a road.  they're using route numbers for navigation.  the only logical solution to this non-problem is to leave CA-1 signed precisely the way it always has been.

And suddenly it dawns on me that, when CSAA/Automobile Club of Southern California was signing routes in the old days...they understood that WAY better than those that have enacted the current "let's sign to mark maintenance" practice.

[NE2]

And suddenly it dawns on me that, when CSAA/Automobile Club of Southern California was signing routes in the old days...they understood that WAY better than those that have enacted the current "let's sign to mark maintenance" practice.

Yep.

from http://caltrafficsigns.com/pictures/displayimage.php?album=11&pos=3

[agentsteel53]

the "COUNTY" designation is sufficiently insignificant that it doesn't impede navigation.  it reminds me of Florida slapping a ton of "COUNTY" and "C" stickers onto various downgraded state highways in 1977.  pretty unnecessary but not nearly as much of a waste of money as taking down all 1 shields and replacing them with (apparently different) "to 1" assemblies.

the "TEMPORARY" banner in that 24/12 photo may be superfluous.  if it means "this is the road for the next interval; soon we will move the highway onto that road being built several feet away" then it is fine, but if it means "soon this will be under state maintenance, but look and behave precisely the same" then it is unnecessary.

[NE2]

Agree with everything said above. The COUNTY HIGHWAY lets you know who to blame for bad road conditions.

I think that sign was in Walnut Grove, on what is now SR 160 at the Sacramento River bridge. To the right was a county-maintained temporary alignment that was bypassed ca. 1942 by a significantly shorter cutoff. Does pre-1942 jibe with the sign style?

[agentsteel53]

yes, the sign style is 1935-1939.

[andy3175]

For the AARoads picture of this sign (Routes 1 and 2), see https://www.aaroads.com/california/images001/ca-001_sb_santa_monica_50.jpg, from the page https://www.aaroads.com/california/ca-001sk.html. It was on the off-ramp from southbound California 1 to Lincoln Blvd, which carries California 1 south toward Venice and California 2 north to link with Santa Monica Blvd. (Very near here is the historic intersection of US 101A and US 66, the western terminus of US 66.)  I wonder what if anything replaced this sign?

Regards,
Andy

[emory]

Why can't they leave well enough alone and continue to sign it as SR 1?

And make people believe the STATE maintains it?! FUCK THAT SHIT!! ::pulls out CA 1 signs and burns them on the beach::

[emory]

the "COUNTY" designation is sufficiently insignificant that it doesn't impede navigation.  it reminds me of Florida slapping a ton of "COUNTY" and "C" stickers onto various downgraded state highways in 1977.  pretty unnecessary but not nearly as much of a waste of money as taking down all 1 shields and replacing them with (apparently different) "to 1" assemblies.

You'll find some "To CA 2" assemblies in Santa Monica as well, including right on the I-10 exit to Lincoln Blvd. Santa Monica is only the first stop, as the cities of Oxnard, Torrance, and Newport Beach are all working to get portions of CA 1 turned over to their local maintenance.

I've always liked how Florida towns handle state relinquishing. If the state relinquishes a road, it simply becomes a county route with the same number, and the blue pentagon shields go up. Although there are instances where if a state route is shortened from one end they won't bother to re-sign the forfeited road, but in the rural parts of Florida where the state gave up most of its roads, there's heavy CR signage. There's few instances where there are small maintenance gaps in long routes through towns along the way. That seems to be a California thing.

[agentsteel53]

There's few instances where there are small maintenance gaps in long routes through towns along the way. That seems to be a California thing.

Vermont uses circle shields (instead of the green "television" shields) for town-maintained segments of state highways.  there are also begin/end state maintenance signs on occasion.

that said, there remain a lot of older circle shields (when they were used everywhere, before the TV shields were introduced) on state-maintained segments of road... there's even "letterbox" 24x24 square shields with a 23x20 rectangle framing the number, the occasional 16x14 state-named reassurance shield still floats around, and I know of one example that may still be around of a 1950s SOUTH 12 single-piece sign.

[AndyMax25]

Why can't they leave well enough alone and continue to sign it as SR 1?

The problem with leaving the signs up after relinquishment is enforcement. With local control of the roadway, the City can re-pave as often as needed (just completed excellent re-paving), assign appropriate speed limit, apply truck route restrictions, and eventually add medians and parkway landscaping. 

With the CA-1 signs still in place, the Santa Monica PD will have a tough time in court enforcing all local aspects as the signs still indicate State jurisdiction and regulations.  The City will soon be adding "TO" trailblazers at the off-ramp and along the stretch of Lincoln.  I'll post a sample soon.

[NE2]

With the CA-1 signs still in place, the Santa Monica PD will have a tough time in court enforcing all local aspects as the signs still indicate State jurisdiction and regulations.

[citation needed]

If this is really a problem, and not something the city is making up, replacing the CALIFORNIA with CITY or SANTA MONICA on the shield would solve it.

[myosh_tino]

Why can't they leave well enough alone and continue to sign it as SR 1?

The problem with leaving the signs up after relinquishment is enforcement. With local control of the roadway, the City can re-pave as often as needed (just completed excellent re-paving), assign appropriate speed limit, apply truck route restrictions, and eventually add medians and parkway landscaping. 

With the CA-1 signs still in place, the Santa Monica PD will have a tough time in court enforcing all local aspects as the signs still indicate State jurisdiction and regulations.  The City will soon be adding "TO" trailblazers at the off-ramp and along the stretch of Lincoln.  I'll post a sample soon.

Yeah, I'm not buying that argument.  Common sense tells me that local authorities (i.e. city police or county sheriff) can issue citations on any roadway within city or county limits.  It doesn't matter who's maintaining said roadway.  I've seen local authorities make traffic stops on state highways and I've seen the CHP make stops on non-state highways.

I'm with NE2... leave CA-1 signed as CA-1.  It doesn't matter who maintains the roadway.

[agentsteel53]

I've seen the CHP make stops on non-state highways.

it helps to note that CHP serves as California's state police.

[emory]

If this is really a problem, and not something the city is making up, replacing the CALIFORNIA with CITY or SANTA MONICA on the shield would solve it.

That's an even better idea, so they'll never do it.

[silverback1065]

what are the official ends of Cal-1 now?

[NE2]

what are the official ends of Cal-1 now?

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

[AndyMax25]

what are the official ends of Cal-1 now?

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

Thank you NE2

Please note section 301.2.c.1 - "The portion of Route 1 relinquished under this section shall cease to be a state highway."  This is why the signs must be removed and avoid any confusion as to which codes (state or local) apply to the roadway.  Just like if an freeway is going to be signed as an interstate, it must meet or exceed all interstate specifications (roadway base, curves, signs, etc)

Please note section 301.2.d - "For the portion of Route 1 that is relinquished, the City of Santa Monica shall maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 1."  This is why the trailblazers will be installed.

[NE2]

Please note section 301.2.c.1 - "The portion of Route 1 relinquished under this section shall cease to be a state highway."  This is why the signs must be removed and avoid any confusion as to which codes (state or local) apply to the roadway.

A state highway is a highway maintained by the state. Nothing says a non-state highway cannot be signed as a state route.

Just like if an freeway is going to be signed as an interstate, it must meet or exceed all interstate specifications (roadway base, curves, signs, etc)

False. There are probably more grandfathered Interstates that don't meet current standards than up-to-standard Interstates in California.

Please note section 301.2.d - "For the portion of Route 1 that is relinquished, the City of Santa Monica shall maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 1."  This is why the trailblazers will be installed.

As the original signs also directed motorists to the continuation of SR 1, they could have been left in place and maintained.


If you need an example, here's one in Yosemite: https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=37.752634,-119.797594&spn=0.001728,0.003543&gl=us&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=37.752634,-119.797594&panoid=lkio_m28FmxT3DN_FHdUAw&cbp=12,171.71,,1,2.69
This is not part of the definition of SR 120:

420.  Route 120 is from:
   (a) Route 5 near Mossdale to the west boundary of Yosemite National Park via the vicinity of Manteca and Oakdale, and via Big Oak Flat and Buck Meadows.
   (b) The east boundary of Yosemite National Park to Route 395 near Mono Lake.
   (c) Route 395 near Mono Lake to Route 6 near Benton Station.

Yet the NPS has no problem signing it as such.

[AndyMax25]

If you need an example, here's one in Yosemite: https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=37.752634,-119.797594&spn=0.001728,0.003543&gl=us&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=37.752634,-119.797594&panoid=lkio_m28FmxT3DN_FHdUAw&cbp=12,171.71,,1,2.69
This is not part of the definition of SR 120:

420.  Route 120 is from:
   (a) Route 5 near Mossdale to the west boundary of Yosemite National Park via the vicinity of Manteca and Oakdale, and via Big Oak Flat and Buck Meadows.
   (b) The east boundary of Yosemite National Park to Route 395 near Mono Lake.
   (c) Route 395 near Mono Lake to Route 6 near Benton Station.

Yet the NPS has no problem signing it as such.

NE2,

Your point is well taken.  Believe me, I would have loved to keep the signs up as-is.  Unfortunately, the Santa Monica City Attorney and the Police Department's traffic Sergeant do have a problem.  Hence the removals.

[NE2]

That still doesn't mean that signs needed to be taken down, rather than just moved down the post with a 'TO' plate added to the top.

[AndyMax25]

That still doesn't mean that signs needed to be taken down, rather than just moved down the post with a 'TO' plate added to the top.

Then why would Caltrans remove the SR shields from overhead freeway signage for other relinquishment?  See this example from I-110 north at the Manchester Ave Exit.  SR-42 used to go through this area but it was relinquished many years ago and you can still see the outline of the SR-42 sign.+