My Proposal for US-60's Re-extension in California

[Duke87]

Another issue that would need to be addressed is what to do with the ~20 miles of existing US 60 between Hope and I-10.

[xonhulu]

ADOT might duplicate the confusing US 95/AZ 95 situation in Quartzsite and name it AZ 60....

[Bickendan]

^There, problem solved.
Next, restoring US 99 in California. ODOT will probably jump on it (they did, after all, mistakenly put up US 99E shields on I-5 during the freeway reconstruction south of Salem about 10 years ago...).

[TheStranger]

I don't understand why states unnecessarily burden their highway department with this sort of thing. States should empower their highway department (like Ohio does, making it illegal to perform speed limit changes without consulting ODOT) instead of neutering it by requiring all route number and maintenance changes to be performed through the state legislature.

It's more a historical artifact - before the 1930s (when signed routes were first created in California!) and dating as far back as the 1910s, the legislative route numbers were used to determine what was maintained by CalTrans, i.e. LRN 2 referred to much of US 101 in the state.

Why this wasn't done away with during the 1964 renumbering though, I don't know - that would have been a prime opportunity to allow state maintenance to be tangentially related to signage, or more specifically what you say - delegate maintenance AND continuinty determinations to CalTrans as opposed to through the legislative process.  Route 39 is one of many (Route 93 in Richmond being another) that would benefit from not having signage dependent primarily on whether legislation gives the route to CalTrans or not.

[TheStranger]

^There, problem solved.
Next, restoring US 99 in California. ODOT will probably jump on it (they did, after all, mistakenly put up US 99E shields on I-5 during the freeway reconstruction south of Salem about 10 years ago...).

And don't forget that US 99 sign in Sacramento that was up for about a month!

[roadfro]

I don't understand why states unnecessarily burden their highway department with this sort of thing. States should empower their highway department (like Ohio does, making it illegal to perform speed limit changes without consulting ODOT) instead of neutering it by requiring all route number and maintenance changes to be performed through the state legislature.

It's more a historical artifact - before the 1930s (when signed routes were first created in California!) and dating as far back as the 1910s, the legislative route numbers were used to determine what was maintained by CalTrans, i.e. LRN 2 referred to much of US 101 in the state.

Why this wasn't done away with during the 1964 renumbering though, I don't know - that would have been a prime opportunity to allow state maintenance to be tangentially related to signage, or more specifically what you say - delegate maintenance AND continuinty determinations to CalTrans as opposed to through the legislative process.  Route 39 is one of many (Route 93 in Richmond being another) that would benefit from not having signage dependent primarily on whether legislation gives the route to CalTrans or not.

The legislative definition of highways would seem to be a burden. Nevada's signed routes also used to be legislatively defined...each route had it's own entry when the state switched over to Nevada Revised Statutes. The legislative definitions remained until the renumbering in 1976. From what I've gathered, it's possible that many legislatively defined routes might not have been owned or maintained by NDOT...If that was the case, it sure seems like a logistical nightmare for the DOT.

[TheStranger]

The legislative definition of highways would seem to be a burden. Nevada's signed routes also used to be legislatively defined...each route had it's own entry when the state switched over to Nevada Revised Statutes. The legislative definitions remained until the renumbering in 1976. From what I've gathered, it's possible that many legislatively defined routes might not have been owned or maintained by NDOT...If that was the case, it sure seems like a logistical nightmare for the DOT.

Oregon still has a legislative numbering/naming system very much like the pre-1964 California system (where signed routes were simply placed on top of existing, unsigned legislative numbers - keeping in mind that in California, the automobile associations, the CSAA and ACSC, did the signing in the early days)...I want to say Minnesota also does legislative numbering but can't say for certain.

I'm not sure what the benefits are for retaining such a setup today, as it seems to significantly hinder DOT flexibility.  It also can affect seemingly unrelated details in strange ways - the exit numbering for I-380 (which includes an unlikely, but long-proposed extension west to Pacifica) as compared to Route 14's (which does not incorporate a legislatively proposed, but dormant extension south from I-5 to Malibu) is one example.

Also, oddly enough, Route 39's legislative definition DOES include the Fullerton gap, which was shown as unsigned in 1940s maps, signed in the mid-80s, and unsigned since.  In that case, in a logical world, Hacienda Road and Azusa Avenue from I-10 to Route 72 would be signed as Route 39, but maintained by Los Angeles County...if only that's how things functioned out here.

[xonhulu]

^There, problem solved.
Next, restoring US 99 in California. ODOT will probably jump on it (they did, after all, mistakenly put up US 99E shields on I-5 during the freeway reconstruction south of Salem about 10 years ago...).

That was probably the contractor's error, not ODOT's, not that ODOT doesn't make this mistake often.  To my everlasting regret, they were quickly corrected before I could get pictures.

[Rover_0]

Actually, I have some contact with people at AzDOT, and they seem friendlier than those at Caltrans; I also sent them my US-160 reroute/extension and US-163 renumbering idea.   While I haven't actually heard back from them, I haven't written them for a while.

[Rover_0]

Another issue that would need to be addressed is what to do with the ~20 miles of existing US 60 between Hope and I-10.

I'd be tempted to say that you could go with AZ-62, AZ-110 (think I-10 connector), or AZ-360, showing some numerical connection to its former route.

[xonhulu]

Actually, I have some contact with people at AzDOT, and they seem friendlier than those at Caltrans; I also sent them my US-160 reroute/extension and US-163 renumbering idea.   While I haven't actually heard back from them, I haven't written them for a while.

That doesn't seem very friendly to me...   

[Rover_0]

Actually, I have some contact with people at AzDOT, and they seem friendlier than those at Caltrans; I also sent them my US-160 reroute/extension and US-163 renumbering idea.   While I haven't actually heard back from them, I haven't written them for a while.

That doesn't seem very friendly to me...   

I know, but it's friendly in the sense that they really haven't tried to stuff the same rhetoric down my throat like Caltrans has.

[AZDude]

I like the idea!

[AZDude]

Heck, if you are going to bring back US 60, why not bring back US 91 and kill CA 91 while you are at it?Perhaps extend US 60 further into California, but California 60 stays.Period.

Impossible: California doesn't allow route duplication, so you couldn't have both US 60 and CA 60 as distinct routes.  The only exceptions I can think of are state route extensions of interstates (CA 15, 710, 110) and the odd I-238/CA 238 situation.

I wouldn't say impossible.  US 60 could just become CA 60 at I-10, sure it would overlap I-10 for a little bit but...

[corco]

Quote from: xonhulu on February 20, 2010, 12:17:01 AM
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on February 20, 2010, 12:03:59 AM
Heck, if you are going to bring back US 60, why not bring back US 91 and kill CA 91 while you are at it?Perhaps extend US 60 further into California, but California 60 stays.Period.

Impossible: California doesn't allow route duplication, so you couldn't have both US 60 and CA 60 as distinct routes.  The only exceptions I can think of are state route extensions of interstates (CA 15, 710, 110) and the odd I-238/CA 238 situation.

I wouldn't say impossible.  US 60 could just become CA 60 at I-10, sure it would overlap I-10 for a little bit but...

Beyond that, Caltrans doesn't distinguish between I-/US/SRs . I-15 can continue as SR 15 because the Legislature formally considers the whole thing "SR 15." US-60 could pick up SR-60 shields wherever it wants, (or where the AASHTO doesn't want US-60) because the Legislature would still consider the whole thing to be "SR 60." The US (or interstate, where applicable) shields are just an AASHTO/FHWA bonus that in Caltrans legislation does not exist.

[J N Winkler]

Why this wasn't done away with during the 1964 renumbering though, I don't know - that would have been a prime opportunity to allow state maintenance to be tangentially related to signage, or more specifically what you say - delegate maintenance AND continuinty determinations to CalTrans as opposed to through the legislative process.  Route 39 is one of many (Route 93 in Richmond being another) that would benefit from not having signage dependent primarily on whether legislation gives the route to CalTrans or not.

I think part of the motivation is to take away a potential political football.  If the state routes are legislatively determined, Caltrans can't be attacked for abuse of discretion in creating or taking away a state route.

In Kansas the KDOT secretary has the legal discretion to create and eliminate state routes, but this is subject to a mileage cap (10,000 miles) and a cap per county (route mileage equal to the distances north-south and east-west through the county) from which only Sedgwick, Johnson, and (I think) Shawnee counties (whose population centers are, respectively, Wichita, Kansas City, and Topeka) are exempt.  Route adjustments tend to be small in scope and to occur with highway relocations and expansions, so that the route mileage per county stays more or less the same.

In practice much the same happens in California because the legislature specifies routes only by points passed through, which gives Caltrans the discretion to identify traversable routings.

[xonhulu]

In Oregon, a transportation commission has the final say on routes, although they pretty much rubber-stamp route changes proposed by ODOT.  I suppose the state legislature could dictate these things, though, in much the same way Congress puts designations into law on occasion, but this hasn't happened in my memory.

[TheStranger]

Why this wasn't done away with during the 1964 renumbering though, I don't know - that would have been a prime opportunity to allow state maintenance to be tangentially related to signage, or more specifically what you say - delegate maintenance AND continuinty determinations to CalTrans as opposed to through the legislative process.  Route 39 is one of many (Route 93 in Richmond being another) that would benefit from not having signage dependent primarily on whether legislation gives the route to CalTrans or not.

I think part of the motivation is to take away a potential political football.  If the state routes are legislatively determined, Caltrans can't be attacked for abuse of discretion in creating or taking away a state route.

I wonder how that compares to say, the situation in Massachusetts (where the DOT determines routings regardless of who maintains them, so that sections can be city-maintained if need be).  I do think that on a navigational standpoint, the extra layer of approval by the legislature here is extremely inflexible.

[J N Winkler]

There is good background on the issue here:

http://cpr.ca.gov/CPR_Report/Issues_and_Recommendations/Chapter_4_Infrastructure/INF13.html

The impression I get is that Caltrans has too many surface-street state highways because it can't get the locals to take them over.  In terms of navigation I think probably the best short-term solution is just not to sign these unrelinquished lengths.

[TheStranger]

There is good background on the issue here:

http://cpr.ca.gov/CPR_Report/Issues_and_Recommendations/Chapter_4_Infrastructure/INF13.html

The impression I get is that Caltrans has too many surface-street state highways because it can't get the locals to take them over.  In terms of navigation I think probably the best short-term solution is just not to sign these unrelinquished lengths.

Well, I meant more this: since most of the relinquishments tend to create a Massachusetts-style situation anyway (i.e. the Route 39 legislative definition at present, in which "signs pointing to Route 39" must be retained on non-state maintained segments such as in Azusa)...why not separate route definition and maintenance obligations, as opposed to having them so tied together at present?

For that matter, it's funny you mentioned "not signing unrelinquished road" since CalTrans DOES sign Route 14U along old US 6 (Sierra Highway) in portions, despite that being completely devoid of navigational value.

[sandiaman]

I     appreciate  the argument that  US  60  could  be beneficial  to the economies of Parker, 29  Palms,  Riverside, etc.  .  Good point!  That  could  ease traffic along  I-10 and provide an historic alternative  to busy  interstate traffic.   ALSO, why not  make the longest   US  highway (US 6)  a  true  coast to coast highway  again.  Close to the  Nevada  border,  amend  six  to  replace  CA 120,  thru   Yosemite, Oakdale, Manteca,Tracy,  and  at Hayward,  follow CA  92  over the  San  Mateo   Bridge   (toll)  over the  coast  range  and truncate  at Half Moon Bay,, right on the Pacific.    Wow.

[Rover_0]

I know it's been a while, but school (college) has been keeping me busy with other things.  However, since school is out, I'm going to resume this again, by contacting Caltrans and AzDOT, and making an online petition (FWIW), which I would show the site to for those in the affected areas (Parker (AZ), 29 Palms, Yucca Valley, etc.) through the opinions in the local newspapers.  I'll show the link when it is up and going.

The person at Caltrans has said that this could be signed into law as such, so I'm going to let them know about the petition as well.  Thoughts?

[Rover_0]

Another question:  Who would I direct the petition at:  Caltrans, or somewhere else in the California Gov't.?

[Scott5114]

Personally, I'd think the best bet would be to contact the local governments in the affected areas directly, and try to get their support by explaining how this would benefit them. If you can present your arguments in person at a city council meeting, so much the better. Woo the Chambers of Commerce. If the cities are behind you, and strongly support the idea, then you'll have a much more cohesive base of support, and they can escalate that support to the upper levels of government.

That's probably the point you should contact the local newspapers (not the editorial section, the actual reporters) and see if you can score an interview. They could make it a human interest piece to run on a slow day ("A Man, A Plan, A Road: Rover_0's Ambitious Plan To Bring US-60 Back Into California"). From there, there's several routes you can take. You can get Caltrans and ADOT involved and go the traditional route, seeking approval from AASHTO, or you can get the CA legislature involved. If you really want this done, and don't care how, you could get some federal representatives involved and Shuster it through.

[Rover_0]

Personally, I'd think the best bet would be to contact the local governments in the affected areas directly, and try to get their support by explaining how this would benefit them. If you can present your arguments in person at a city council meeting, so much the better. Woo the Chambers of Commerce. If the cities are behind you, and strongly support the idea, then you'll have a much more cohesive base of support, and they can escalate that support to the upper levels of government.

That's probably the point you should contact the local newspapers (not the editorial section, the actual reporters) and see if you can score an interview. They could make it a human interest piece to run on a slow day ("A Man, A Plan, A Road: Rover_0's Ambitious Plan To Bring US-60 Back Into California"). From there, there's several routes you can take. You can get Caltrans and ADOT involved and go the traditional route, seeking approval from AASHTO, or you can get the CA legislature involved. If you really want this done, and don't care how, you could get some federal representatives involved and Shuster it through.

Well, the person at Caltrans said that I would need to get a Legislator to sponsor it, and then get it sent through from there.  I certainly don't want to Shuster it through, but what I was thinking was that:
1.) I could start the online petition and direct it at the Legislators involved
2.) Put words in it mentioning the legislative change from Route 62 to Route 60 (in California) and Route 72 to Route US-60 (in Arizona)
3.) Have the legislators sponsor it, hopefully getting the legislature to sign it
4.) Let Caltrans and AzDOT to get in touch with AASHTO and approve the routing.

However, directing it at the Chambers of Commerce in the affected cities and presenting it to them (though not in person; I am in Utah) and linking this idea and the US-191 extension that happened in 1982-ish, and pointing out how this helped the communities affected there.  What are your thoughts, Scott?