Innovative, Unique, or Strange Lane Markings

[kphoger]

It looks to me like the onramp from Brook Avenue is close enough to the offramp from Taft that people were having trouble getting out of the lane on time, so TxDOT striped it that way to give them a place to go rather than forcing them to get off at Taft.

Minnesota says, —Then this is how you stripe that.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/UfqQT8WCh3rKyrR18

[Tendies]

Not sure if this really counts but there's a freeway ramp from CA-91E to Albertoni St that folds over and merges onto a parallel one way street, forming a two way. There seems to be a vestigial lane for westbound traffic that goes unused. The exit ramp becomes its own lane, and the vestigial lane becomes the left lane, despite there being seemingly no way to get The road screams "I used to be a two way street until the freeway was built", but this configuration remains constant back to the 70s, as thats the oldest historic imagery I was able to find online. I believe the freeway predates the imagery by a few more decades.

Technically it seems legally driveable, as there is only one set of double yellows, as there is no one way signage or U-turn prohibition, and the lane doesn't become gridded out until further down. It seems ambiguous as to exactly where it ceases to legally be a westbound lane and becomes a left shoulder. California does occasionally mark left shoulders with double yellows. The road was recently repaved and even the vestigial lane was repaved, and the grid markings were never extended back towards the median.

The google car managed to drive on it
https://maps.app.goo.gl/eHhgxR53VybnHfKU7

Also of note: The dirt patch where a large number of cars that cut the ramp and turn left where the vestigial lane begins, although looking at the road geometry there seems to be no good reason to do so, as nothing connects directly to Albertoni between this exit and the next exit to Central Av.

On the topic of ghost lanes, we have US-101N at CA-170N, where after the split, the shoulder suddenly becomes the right lane at the same time a carpool lane spawns on the left. This one is pretty well known tho. Havent researched this one, but it seems to be a relic back when Caltrans was really lazy and expanded freeways by just deleting shoulders and narrowing lanes, rather than building new pavement.

GSV shows the car blatantly driving in the gore before the lane legally begins.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/zpmKskibedDedrsTA

[jakeroot]

Not sure if this really counts but there's a freeway ramp from CA-91E to Albertoni St that folds over and merges onto a parallel one way street, forming a two way. There seems to be a vestigial lane for westbound traffic that goes unused. The exit ramp becomes its own lane, and the vestigial lane becomes the left lane, despite there being seemingly no way to get The road screams "I used to be a two way street until the freeway was built", but this configuration remains constant back to the 70s, as thats the oldest historic imagery I was able to find online. I believe the freeway predates the imagery by a few more decades.

Technically it seems legally driveable, as there is only one set of double yellows, as there is no one way signage or U-turn prohibition, and the lane doesn't become gridded out until further down. It seems ambiguous as to exactly where it ceases to legally be a westbound lane and becomes a left shoulder. California does occasionally mark left shoulders with double yellows. The road was recently repaved and even the vestigial lane was repaved, and the grid markings were never extended back towards the median.

The google car managed to drive on it
https://maps.app.goo.gl/eHhgxR53VybnHfKU7

Also of note: The dirt patch where a large number of cars that cut the ramp and turn left where the vestigial lane begins, although looking at the road geometry there seems to be no good reason to do so, as nothing connects directly to Albertoni between this exit and the next exit to Central Av.

Looking at the grid overall, it seems plausible that Rainsbury might have been planned to extend to Albertoni, but perhaps neighbors protested and the plan canceled. The ROW on the left (judging from the fence line) sort of curves towards Albertoni and the corner itself still has stop signs, perhaps dating back to when it was planned to be an arterial intersection. It also seems to be the exact point where that westbound lane begins.

[mrsman]

While too old to be helpful here, there is a great resource that I use that has an entire 1956 LA County Thomas Guide, showing every street, is available for free here:

https://historicmapworks.com/Atlas/US/10542/Los+Angeles+County+1956/

SPecifically, on page 064, you can see that at this point in time, that whole area of Carson is not even built up at all.  They were able to put the 91 freeway right over old Artesia Blvd.  Albertoni is a later addition.

[Tendies]

Not sure if this really counts but there's a freeway ramp from CA-91E to Albertoni St that folds over and merges onto a parallel one way street, forming a two way. There seems to be a vestigial lane for westbound traffic that goes unused. The exit ramp becomes its own lane, and the vestigial lane becomes the left lane, despite there being seemingly no way to get The road screams "I used to be a two way street until the freeway was built", but this configuration remains constant back to the 70s, as thats the oldest historic imagery I was able to find online. I believe the freeway predates the imagery by a few more decades.

Technically it seems legally driveable, as there is only one set of double yellows, as there is no one way signage or U-turn prohibition, and the lane doesn't become gridded out until further down. It seems ambiguous as to exactly where it ceases to legally be a westbound lane and becomes a left shoulder. California does occasionally mark left shoulders with double yellows. The road was recently repaved and even the vestigial lane was repaved, and the grid markings were never extended back towards the median.

The google car managed to drive on it
https://maps.app.goo.gl/eHhgxR53VybnHfKU7

Also of note: The dirt patch where a large number of cars that cut the ramp and turn left where the vestigial lane begins, although looking at the road geometry there seems to be no good reason to do so, as nothing connects directly to Albertoni between this exit and the next exit to Central Av.

Looking at the grid overall, it seems plausible that Rainsbury might have been planned to extend to Albertoni, but perhaps neighbors protested and the plan canceled. The ROW on the left (judging from the fence line) sort of curves towards Albertoni and the corner itself still has stop signs, perhaps dating back to when it was planned to be an arterial intersection. It also seems to be the exact point where that westbound lane begins.

Just heard back from my records request and your theory seems to be correct. This is all I heard, the original planning documents seem to have been lost to time.

[jakeroot]

Not sure if this really counts but there's a freeway ramp from CA-91E to Albertoni St that folds over and merges onto a parallel one way street, forming a two way. There seems to be a vestigial lane for westbound traffic that goes unused. The exit ramp becomes its own lane, and the vestigial lane becomes the left lane, despite there being seemingly no way to get The road screams "I used to be a two way street until the freeway was built", but this configuration remains constant back to the 70s, as thats the oldest historic imagery I was able to find online. I believe the freeway predates the imagery by a few more decades.

Technically it seems legally driveable, as there is only one set of double yellows, as there is no one way signage or U-turn prohibition, and the lane doesn't become gridded out until further down. It seems ambiguous as to exactly where it ceases to legally be a westbound lane and becomes a left shoulder. California does occasionally mark left shoulders with double yellows. The road was recently repaved and even the vestigial lane was repaved, and the grid markings were never extended back towards the median.

The google car managed to drive on it
https://maps.app.goo.gl/eHhgxR53VybnHfKU7

Also of note: The dirt patch where a large number of cars that cut the ramp and turn left where the vestigial lane begins, although looking at the road geometry there seems to be no good reason to do so, as nothing connects directly to Albertoni between this exit and the next exit to Central Av.

Looking at the grid overall, it seems plausible that Rainsbury might have been planned to extend to Albertoni, but perhaps neighbors protested and the plan canceled. The ROW on the left (judging from the fence line) sort of curves towards Albertoni and the corner itself still has stop signs, perhaps dating back to when it was planned to be an arterial intersection. It also seems to be the exact point where that westbound lane begins.

Just heard back from my records request and your theory seems to be correct. This is all I heard, the original planning documents seem to have been lost to time.

Very cool! Thanks for sharing this, and thanks for reaching out to the city/county. I'm glad they had some documents on hand to clear things up. Unless you found the ROW documents online?

[wanderer2575]

Strange:  this dotted line in Wichita Falls, which doesn't actually delineate a lane.

I don't see the point of that at all. As per a traffic law that was discussed around here recently, one solid line is meant to "discourage" crossing. So what's the point of making a half-lane there if it's just going to end anyway? I personally think it needs to be restriped to a larger gore area.

Even if it is meant to be a start of a future 4-lane, you could still just drop the EXIT ONLY lane and have traffic exit off of the highway "traditionally".

It looks to me like the onramp from Brook Avenue is close enough to the offramp from Taft that people were having trouble getting out of the lane on time, so TxDOT striped it that way to give them a place to go rather than forcing them to get off at Taft.

Yeah, but that dashed line makes it look like there is an option lane to the exit ramp.  You don't want to be in that right lane and crossing the solid white before merging when the vehicle next to you reasonably assumes you're exiting and so starts drifting toward the right to what looks like another exit lane.  Very stupid decision to stripe it this way.  MN does it correctly, as kphoger showed.  MI also does it that way.

[Tendies]

Not sure if this really counts but there's a freeway ramp from CA-91E to Albertoni St that folds over and merges onto a parallel one way street, forming a two way. There seems to be a vestigial lane for westbound traffic that goes unused. The exit ramp becomes its own lane, and the vestigial lane becomes the left lane, despite there being seemingly no way to get The road screams "I used to be a two way street until the freeway was built", but this configuration remains constant back to the 70s, as thats the oldest historic imagery I was able to find online. I believe the freeway predates the imagery by a few more decades.

Technically it seems legally driveable, as there is only one set of double yellows, as there is no one way signage or U-turn prohibition, and the lane doesn't become gridded out until further down. It seems ambiguous as to exactly where it ceases to legally be a westbound lane and becomes a left shoulder. California does occasionally mark left shoulders with double yellows. The road was recently repaved and even the vestigial lane was repaved, and the grid markings were never extended back towards the median.

The google car managed to drive on it
https://maps.app.goo.gl/eHhgxR53VybnHfKU7

Also of note: The dirt patch where a large number of cars that cut the ramp and turn left where the vestigial lane begins, although looking at the road geometry there seems to be no good reason to do so, as nothing connects directly to Albertoni between this exit and the next exit to Central Av.

Looking at the grid overall, it seems plausible that Rainsbury might have been planned to extend to Albertoni, but perhaps neighbors protested and the plan canceled. The ROW on the left (judging from the fence line) sort of curves towards Albertoni and the corner itself still has stop signs, perhaps dating back to when it was planned to be an arterial intersection. It also seems to be the exact point where that westbound lane begins.

Just heard back from my records request and your theory seems to be correct. This is all I heard, the original planning documents seem to have been lost to time.

Very cool! Thanks for sharing this, and thanks for reaching out to the city/county. I'm glad they had some documents on hand to clear things up. Unless you found the ROW documents online?

I did look at some zoning maps, and they all show Rainsbury connecting to Albertoni. The ROW documents they sent me are technically public, but I wasnt able to find them myself. From what it seems, it looks like the road technically exists on paper but was just never built.

Bizarrely, there seems to be a gated driveway and car + RV parked there. It's not a yard extension from the adjacent property, as both of them have a wall there. Driveway seems to have been there since the 80s, RV since the early 00s at least. Said driveway has no address number on the curb or gate.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/u7mJWqGfSfpcarvA7

[kphoger]

Bizarrely, there seems to be a gated driveway and car + RV parked there. It's not a yard extension from the adjacent property, as both of them have a wall there. Driveway seems to have been there since the 80s, RV since the early 00s at least. Said driveway has no address number on the curb or gate.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/u7mJWqGfSfpcarvA7

Yes it is.  That driveway is part of 803 E Haxby Ct.

[Scott5114]

Bizarrely, there seems to be a gated driveway and car + RV parked there. It's not a yard extension from the adjacent property, as both of them have a wall there. Driveway seems to have been there since the 80s, RV since the early 00s at least. Said driveway has no address number on the curb or gate.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/u7mJWqGfSfpcarvA7

Yes it is.  That driveway is part of 803 E Haxby Ct.

That seems to imply that there's still an easement on that part of the property where they could punch Rainsbury through if they ever wanted to. Probably why the property owner is only using it for vehicle storage and has it walled off separately from the rest of the property.