CA-1 Relinquishment in Santa Monica

[emory]

Speaking of definitions, I do wish the state would just go through the SHC and clean house of any route definitions that they have no plan on constructing ever. For example, Route 170's definition is still "(1) Los Angeles International Airport to Route 90. (2) Route 101 near Riverside Drive to Route 5 near Tujunga Wash." even though the two are separated and the Laurel Canyon Freeway was abandoned ages ago. Route 65's definition still contains "(b) Route 198 near Exeter to Route 80 near Roseville on a route along the easterly side of the San Joaquin Valley, which route may include all or portions of any existing state highway route." but they're never going to build the East Side Freeway. It must be amusing for travelers on that road in Roseville to start at EXIT 306.

[JustDrive]

Speaking of relinquishment, the CA 1 shield on NB 101 in Oxnard has been greened out.  Has PCH officially been moved to the Rice Avenue corridor yet?

[oscar]

Speaking of relinquishment, the CA 1 shield on NB 101 in Oxnard has been greened out.  Has PCH officially been moved to the Rice Avenue corridor yet?

I drove Rice Avenue Thursday of last week (approaching it from NB 101 then continuing to and turning around at the Rose Avenue exit -- so I didn't see how the Oxnard Blvd. exit was signed).  There was no CA 1 signage in either direction on US 101 at the Rice Avenue exit, or on SB Rice Avenue south to the PCH interchange.  I don't recall signage at that interchange indicating PCH/Oxnard Blvd. NB was part of CA 1, just pointing me to CA 1 on the southbound PCH.

Maybe the changeover is in progress.  'Bout time.

[TheStranger]

Speaking of definitions, I do wish the state would just go through the SHC and clean house of any route definitions that they have no plan on constructing ever. For example, Route 170's definition is still "(1) Los Angeles International Airport to Route 90. (2) Route 101 near Riverside Drive to Route 5 near Tujunga Wash." even though the two are separated and the Laurel Canyon Freeway was abandoned ages ago. Route 65's definition still contains "(b) Route 198 near Exeter to Route 80 near Roseville on a route along the easterly side of the San Joaquin Valley, which route may include all or portions of any existing state highway route." but they're never going to build the East Side Freeway. It must be amusing for travelers on that road in Roseville to start at EXIT 306.

Route 65 is still on actual long-term plans (which means nothing as far as getting anything built is concerned, but certainly is in a much more realistic state of possibility than 170 south of 101!) from the last few years.

IMO the legislative-run system of route numbering is exactly why absurdities such as 77, 112, 260, and (ugh) 164 remain, even though all four were/are signed as parts of other routes (not as true lately for 77 or 112).

[Occidental Tourist]

Speaking of relinquishment, the CA 1 shield on NB 101 in Oxnard has been greened out.  Has PCH officially been moved to the Rice Avenue corridor yet?

I drove Rice Avenue Thursday of last week (approaching it from NB 101 then continuing to and turning around at the Rose Avenue exit -- so I didn't see how the Oxnard Blvd. exit was signed).  There was no CA 1 signage in either direction on US 101 at the Rice Avenue exit, or on SB Rice Avenue south to the PCH interchange.  I don't recall signage at that interchange indicating PCH/Oxnard Blvd. NB was part of CA 1, just pointing me to CA 1 on the southbound PCH.

Maybe the changeover is in progress.  'Bout time.

We were there a few months ago.  Even with new signage on the Ventura Freeway, Oxnard Blvd is still signed as CA 1.


Mod Note: Fixed quoting. Please make sure to reply below quoted material or edit nested quotes appropriately. Thanks! --roadfro

[mrsman]

Similar thing happened to Route 83 after the interchange for it from 210 was nixed: the route definition was eventually changed to cut the route further south, if I'm not mistaken.

You're right; Section 383 of the California Streets and Highways Code states: "383.  (a) Route 83 is from Route 71 to Route 10 near Upland." The rest of the route from that point north to SR 210 is no longer state highway and ineligible for adoption per Section 383(b), which states: "(b) The relinquished former portion of Route 83 within the City of
Upland is not a state highway and is not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the relinquished former portion of Route 83, the City of Upland shall ensure the continuity of traffic flow, including any traffic signal progression, and maintain signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 83." All of SR 83 between I-10 and SR 210 is within the city of Upland, so Upland must have negotiated to take over the former route. I wonder if any SR 83 signs are posted along Euclid Avenue between I-10 and SR 210? Google Maps still shows it signed, for whatever that's worth.

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

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Upland,+CA&hl=en&ll=34.109388,-117.647095&spn=0.083146,0.169086&sll=32.824552,-117.108978&sspn=0.6751,1.352692&oq=upland+&t=h&hnear=Upland,+San+Bernardino+County,+California&z=13

Does anybody know why the 210 interchange at Euclid was nixed?  It seems to me that Eucllid was a much more major street than Campus, especially before the 210 was extended to Upland.  I see that Campus is now a 2 lane in each direction street, but I remember when Campus was only one lane in each direction, even north of Foothill Blvd.

[andy3175]

Similar thing happened to Route 83 after the interchange for it from 210 was nixed: the route definition was eventually changed to cut the route further south, if I'm not mistaken.

You're right; Section 383 of the California Streets and Highways Code states: "383.  (a) Route 83 is from Route 71 to Route 10 near Upland." The rest of the route from that point north to SR 210 is no longer state highway and ineligible for adoption per Section 383(b), which states: "(b) The relinquished former portion of Route 83 within the City of
Upland is not a state highway and is not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the relinquished former portion of Route 83, the City of Upland shall ensure the continuity of traffic flow, including any traffic signal progression, and maintain signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 83." All of SR 83 between I-10 and SR 210 is within the city of Upland, so Upland must have negotiated to take over the former route. I wonder if any SR 83 signs are posted along Euclid Avenue between I-10 and SR 210? Google Maps still shows it signed, for whatever that's worth.

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

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Upland,+CA&hl=en&ll=34.109388,-117.647095&spn=0.083146,0.169086&sll=32.824552,-117.108978&sspn=0.6751,1.352692&oq=upland+&t=h&hnear=Upland,+San+Bernardino+County,+California&z=13

Does anybody know why the 210 interchange at Euclid was nixed?  It seems to me that Eucllid was a much more major street than Campus, especially before the 210 was extended to Upland.  I see that Campus is now a 2 lane in each direction street, but I remember when Campus was only one lane in each direction, even north of Foothill Blvd.

My understanding was that the locals wanted to keep 83 from connecting to 210 directly as a traffic control measure, and they built a cut and cover tunnel at the Euclid overpass with park deck, etc. on top.