CA 282

[Max Rockatansky]

I recently drove the entirety of CA 282 in the City of Coronado.  While CA 282 is short 0.6 miles it does have an interesting one-way alignment on 3rd Street and 4th Street.  The most interesting aspect to CA 282 that wasn't aware of previously was that it briefly connected to the San Diego-Coronado Ferry which was at the north end of Orange Avenue.  The connection to the ferry on CA 282 only lasted about a year before the Coronado Bridge carrying CA 75 was completed.  In recent years there has been all sorts of talk regarding CA 282 whether it should be moved to a tunnel or relinquished all together:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/05/california-state-route-282.html

[SoCal Kid]

I recently drove the entirety of CA 282 in the City of Coronado.  While CA 282 is short 0.6 miles it does have an interesting one-way alignment on 3rd Street and 4th Street.  The most interesting aspect to CA 282 that wasn't aware of previously was that it briefly connected to the San Diego-Coronado Ferry which was at the north end of Orange Avenue.  The connection to the ferry on CA 282 only lasted about a year before the Coronado Bridge carrying CA 75 was completed.  In recent years there has been all sorts of talk regarding CA 282 whether it should be moved to a tunnel or relinquished all together:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/05/california-state-route-282.html

I ok with what it is right now. If it gets relinquished, then im ok with that too.

[Max Rockatansky]

I recently drove the entirety of CA 282 in the City of Coronado.  While CA 282 is short 0.6 miles it does have an interesting one-way alignment on 3rd Street and 4th Street.  The most interesting aspect to CA 282 that wasn't aware of previously was that it briefly connected to the San Diego-Coronado Ferry which was at the north end of Orange Avenue.  The connection to the ferry on CA 282 only lasted about a year before the Coronado Bridge carrying CA 75 was completed.  In recent years there has been all sorts of talk regarding CA 282 whether it should be moved to a tunnel or relinquished all together:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/05/california-state-route-282.html

I ok with what it is right now. If it gets relinquished, then im ok with that too.

Relinquishment of surface streets with heavy volumes of traffic isn't necessarily an act of a healthy DOT.  The problem is Caltrans is trying to pick and choose segments of limited access road (in the case of CA 75 it's incredibly glaring) that it wants to maintain by dangling financial carrots to local agencies and being inflexible on design standards that conform to an urban environment.  In the case of CA 282 it is th primary access point to a military base which in my opinion ought to something that warrants being a primary transportation concern on a state level.

[TheStranger]

I recently drove the entirety of CA 282 in the City of Coronado.  While CA 282 is short 0.6 miles it does have an interesting one-way alignment on 3rd Street and 4th Street.  The most interesting aspect to CA 282 that wasn't aware of previously was that it briefly connected to the San Diego-Coronado Ferry which was at the north end of Orange Avenue.  The connection to the ferry on CA 282 only lasted about a year before the Coronado Bridge carrying CA 75 was completed.  In recent years there has been all sorts of talk regarding CA 282 whether it should be moved to a tunnel or relinquished all together:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/05/california-state-route-282.html

I ok with what it is right now. If it gets relinquished, then im ok with that too.

Relinquishment of surface streets with heavy volumes of traffic isn't necessarily an act of a healthy DOT.  The problem is Caltrans is trying to pick and choose segments of limited access road (in the case of CA 75 it's incredibly glaring) that it wants to maintain by dangling financial carrots to local agencies and being inflexible on design standards that conform to an urban environment.  In the case of CA 282 it is th primary access point to a military base which in my opinion ought to something that warrants being a primary transportation concern on a state level.

The other aspect of reliqunishment that I have never liked is how much it affects the navigational function of routes - i.e. the "To Route 1" signage in parts of the Pacific Coast Highway that are locally maintained.  Maybe for some all-urban/suburban streets like the former Route 274 this is understandable, but the philosophy in place now seems to be a bit too okay with creating large route gaps (i.e. Route 16, Route 160) without having disparate segments renumbered, or creating piecemeal gaps in an otherwise continuous route (the aforementioned PCH example).

[Max Rockatansky]

I recently drove the entirety of CA 282 in the City of Coronado.  While CA 282 is short 0.6 miles it does have an interesting one-way alignment on 3rd Street and 4th Street.  The most interesting aspect to CA 282 that wasn't aware of previously was that it briefly connected to the San Diego-Coronado Ferry which was at the north end of Orange Avenue.  The connection to the ferry on CA 282 only lasted about a year before the Coronado Bridge carrying CA 75 was completed.  In recent years there has been all sorts of talk regarding CA 282 whether it should be moved to a tunnel or relinquished all together:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/05/california-state-route-282.html

I ok with what it is right now. If it gets relinquished, then im ok with that too.

Relinquishment of surface streets with heavy volumes of traffic isn't necessarily an act of a healthy DOT.  The problem is Caltrans is trying to pick and choose segments of limited access road (in the case of CA 75 it's incredibly glaring) that it wants to maintain by dangling financial carrots to local agencies and being inflexible on design standards that conform to an urban environment.  In the case of CA 282 it is th primary access point to a military base which in my opinion ought to something that warrants being a primary transportation concern on a state level.

The other aspect of reliqunishment that I have never liked is how much it affects the navigational function of routes - i.e. the "To Route 1" signage in parts of the Pacific Coast Highway that are locally maintained.  Maybe for some all-urban/suburban streets like the former Route 274 this is understandable, but the philosophy in place now seems to be a bit too okay with creating large route gaps (i.e. Route 16, Route 160) without having disparate segments renumbered, or creating piecemeal gaps in an otherwise continuous route (the aforementioned PCH example).

Doesn't most of the relinquishment language usually require the locality to maintain signage directing to the continuation of the highway?  It seems like most localities usually just ignore said provision like San Jose did with CA 130 on Alum Rock Avenue. 

[TheStranger]

Doesn't most of the relinquishment language usually require the locality to maintain signage directing to the continuation of the highway?  It seems like most localities usually just ignore said provision like San Jose did with CA 130 on Alum Rock Avenue. 

Here's a 2000s example, Route 160 between the town of Freeport and the Sacramento neighborhood of Alkali Flat:
https://cahighways.org/153-160.html#160

"In 2003, Assembly Bill 1717, Chapter 525, officially truncated the route to "(a) Route 160 is from Route 4 near Antioch to the southern city limits of Sacramento. (b) The relinquished former portion of Route 160 within the City of Sacramento is not a state highway and is not eligible for adoption under Section 81.""

No navigational requirement placed here (unlike in other relinquishments).  A crappy side effect of this is that the Antioch-Freeport segment essentially peters out less than a mile before I-5 which would be a much, much more logical terminus (especially now with the recently finished Cosumnes River Boulevard interchange near Freeport).

[Max Rockatansky]

Doesn't most of the relinquishment language usually require the locality to maintain signage directing to the continuation of the highway?  It seems like most localities usually just ignore said provision like San Jose did with CA 130 on Alum Rock Avenue. 

Here's a 2000s example, Route 160 between the town of Freeport and the Sacramento neighborhood of Alkali Flat:
https://cahighways.org/153-160.html#160

"In 2003, Assembly Bill 1717, Chapter 525, officially truncated the route to "(a) Route 160 is from Route 4 near Antioch to the southern city limits of Sacramento. (b) The relinquished former portion of Route 160 within the City of Sacramento is not a state highway and is not eligible for adoption under Section 81.""

No navigational requirement placed here (unlike in other relinquishments).  A crappy side effect of this is that the Antioch-Freeport segment essentially peters out less than a mile before I-5 which would be a much, much more logical terminus (especially now with the recently finished Cosumnes River Boulevard interchange near Freeport).

See that's the thing that gets me the State Highways originally were meant as a navigational aid but have become a maintenance marker over time.  The original run of State Highways weren't entirely signed on state maintained roadways but rather where they were most useful.  That changed around 1940, or at least state Highway maps indicate as such.  Granted back then you had bodies like the ACSC signing highways rather than the Division of Highways.  No such body like that really exists anymore that do State level signage aside from Caltrans.