CA-1 Relinquishment in Santa Monica

[NE2]

Because SR 42 was replaced by I-105.

[emory]

Because SR 42 was replaced by I-105.

And yet signs on I-405 are still not updated to reflect this.

[TheStranger]

Because SR 42 was replaced by I-105.

And yet signs on I-405 are still not updated to reflect this.

More egregiously, Route 91 signage was added at Artesia Boulevard when retroreflectives were installed (even though 91 has not been signed west of 110 for some time).  Not that I'm against it navigationally, but that only works if the actual street retains trailblazers, which isn't the case there.

[The High Plains Traveler]

At some point, will enough of the old U.S. 101A segment of CA-1 be relinquished to warrant removal of its signage? Or will it possibly exist only from Oxnard to the beginning of I-10? Seems like a lot of it is being turned back.

[emory]

At some point, will enough of the old U.S. 101A segment of CA-1 be relinquished to warrant removal of its signage? Or will it possibly exist only from Oxnard to the beginning of I-10? Seems like a lot of it is being turned back.

It doesn't even technically reach I-10 anymore. Even with what they've relinquished so far in Santa Monica, Dana Point, and Newport Beach, and with Torrance's section and the rest of Newport Beach's currently being negotiated, that's still just about 100 miles of old US 101A with no plans to be turned over. Certainly not like CA 19, which is on the brink of total deletion.

[NE2]

It doesn't even technically reach I-10 anymore.

Isn't the tunnel to the beach still state maintained?

[Indyroads]

It is possible that CA-1 could be truncated all the way back to Gaviota CA the remainder could just become signed as a historical PCH which then signage would be maintained by the historical society or the cities.

[cpzilliacus]

I suppose I don't get it. 

Why can't the road be signed as California 1 even if it is maintained by a municipal government?

I know of at least two other states where municipal governments maintain state-numbered highways, yet the signs remain.

[DTComposer]

I suppose I don't get it. 

Why can't the road be signed as California 1 even if it is maintained by a municipal government?

I know of at least two other states where municipal governments maintain state-numbered highways, yet the signs remain.

This is being discussed in another thread, and it's something I agree with. The point of signing a route is to provide navigational assistance to the traveler.

I'm all for updating the route definitions to include non-state-maintained segments - something like:

Route 1 is from:
(a) Route 5 in Dana Point to Route 101 near Oxnard.
(1) Route 1 shall be locally maintained within the city of Dana Point.
(2) Route 1 shall be locally maintained within the city of Newport Beach.
(3) Route 1 shall be locally maintained within the city of Santa Monica.
...and so on.

OR

Route 19 is from Route 1 in Long Beach to Route 164 in Pico Rivera via Lakewood and Rosemead Boulevards.
(a) Route 19 shall be locally maintained along the entirety of its route.

Then, add a single statute: something to the effect that says municipalities who locally maintain state routes will do so to a certain standard of road, continue to sign the routes, etc. with the understanding that the road is of regional importance.

[Indyroads]

I'm all for updating the route definitions to include non-state-maintained segments - something like:

Route 1 is from:
(a) Route 5 in Dana Point to Route 101 near Oxnard.
(1) Route 1 shall be locally maintained within the city of Dana Point.
(2) Route 1 shall be locally maintained within the city of Newport Beach.
(3) Route 1 shall be locally maintained within the city of Santa Monica.
...and so on.

OR

Route 19 is from Route 1 in Long Beach to Route 164 in Pico Rivera via Lakewood and Rosemead Boulevards.
(a) Route 19 shall be locally maintained along the entirety of its route.

Then, add a single statute: something to the effect that says municipalities who locally maintain state routes will do so to a certain standard of road, continue to sign the routes, etc. with the understanding that the road is of regional importance.

I am all for that idea as well. I wish that the state of Indiana would do that for its "state roads" as well. Even if it means using a different highway marker. the route signs are used for wayfinding anyway...

[Bickendan]

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

...why is Tioga Rd marked as a freeway and signed as CA 120 in Google Maps?
(I don't really need an answer to that)

[NE2]

Because Henries: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2001.msg245051#msg245051

[andy3175]

Here is a possible better approach to the segments of California 1 that have been removed from the state highway system yet are supposed to be signed for continuity. While looking for something else, I encountered this law from South Dakota:

http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=31-4-3

31-4-3.   Inclusion of city streets in system. The Department of Transportation may at its discretion extend the state trunk highway system to include any street or streets within the limits of any first or second class municipality if necessary to make a continuous route for any state trunk highway through the municipality.

Maybe this is a good approach for California?

Regards,
Andy

[cpzilliacus]

I am all for that idea as well. I wish that the state of Indiana would do that for its "state roads" as well. Even if it means using a different highway marker. the route signs are used for wayfinding anyway...

Maryland and Virginia have long done this.  In Virginia, the Commonwealth grants a certain amount of money to cities and towns that maintain state primary highways (route number less than 600) within their borders. In Maryland, the state usually just maintains state signed highways in most municipalities though there are exceptions - nearly all roads within Baltimore City are maintained by the municipal government, and the state grants a very generous annual lump sum payment to Baltimore.

[cpzilliacus]

This is being discussed in another thread, and it's something I agree with. The point of signing a route is to provide navigational assistance to the traveler.

I'm all for updating the route definitions to include non-state-maintained segments - something like:

Route 1 is from:
(a) Route 5 in Dana Point to Route 101 near Oxnard.
(1) Route 1 shall be locally maintained within the city of Dana Point.
(2) Route 1 shall be locally maintained within the city of Newport Beach.
(3) Route 1 shall be locally maintained within the city of Santa Monica.
...and so on.

OR

Route 19 is from Route 1 in Long Beach to Route 164 in Pico Rivera via Lakewood and Rosemead Boulevards.
(a) Route 19 shall be locally maintained along the entirety of its route.

Then, add a single statute: something to the effect that says municipalities who locally maintain state routes will do so to a certain standard of road, continue to sign the routes, etc. with the understanding that the road is of regional importance.

I would go one step further and require Caltrans to provide some money to the municipalities that maintain those state roads, probably on a per-lane-mile basis, as long as they are kept up to a certain standard.

[The High Plains Traveler]

I think it's one thing to have scattered segments of a route relinquished to the local city. If Torrance takes control of its portion of CA-1 and it continues to be a state-maintained route in Redondo Beach and Lomita, then it makes sense to use trailblazers in the discontinuous segment to mark the route. If, however, virtually all of a route (CA-19) is relinquished, it makes no sense to mark it as a state highway when it isn't one. You already have perfectly good street names for navigation purposes, and in this instance CA-19 isn't a route that would be followed over a long distance by the vast majority of traffic on it. Although it's long, it's a local road, no different than Rosecrans or Imperial Highway.

[jrouse]

This is being discussed in another thread, and it's something I agree with. The point of signing a route is to provide navigational assistance to the traveler.

I'm all for updating the route definitions to include non-state-maintained segments - something like:

Route 1 is from:
(a) Route 5 in Dana Point to Route 101 near Oxnard.
(1) Route 1 shall be locally maintained within the city of Dana Point.
(2) Route 1 shall be locally maintained within the city of Newport Beach.
(3) Route 1 shall be locally maintained within the city of Santa Monica.
...and so on.

OR

Route 19 is from Route 1 in Long Beach to Route 164 in Pico Rivera via Lakewood and Rosemead Boulevards.
(a) Route 19 shall be locally maintained along the entirety of its route.

Then, add a single statute: something to the effect that says municipalities who locally maintain state routes will do so to a certain standard of road, continue to sign the routes, etc. with the understanding that the road is of regional importance.

I would go one step further and require Caltrans to provide some money to the municipalities that maintain those state roads, probably on a per-lane-mile basis, as long as they are kept up to a certain standard.

The reason for many of these relinquishments is because the local agencies want to make some change to the road that generally would not be done by the State because it is a State highway (traffic calming is a major reason).  So it is the locals pushing it, not necessarily Caltrans, in a lot of cases.  State law requires that relinquished facilities be presented to the local agencies in a state of good repair, so Caltrans is making a final investment, and then it is up to the locals from there.  Because the state is short on funds, it is actually to Caltrans' advantage to relinquish highways.  I highly doubt you will ever see Caltrans agree to relinquish a piece of State highway and continue to pay the local agency for it.  We have had maintenance agreements with cities where they maintain State highways within their jurisdictions.  For example, the City of Sacramento maintained the surface street portions of State Route 160 before Caltrans relinquished it to the city.

The relinquishment of State Route 1 to the City of Santa Monica has presented some challenges when it comes to issuing oversize/overweight vehicle permits, and it may drive some discussion on how to relinquishments should be done.  I have heard some of our managers say that they do not like to do piecemeal relinquishments like this because of the system continuity issues it creates, such as what we are seeing with Route 1 and the permits.

[andy3175]

The reason for many of these relinquishments is because the local agencies want to make some change to the road that generally would not be done by the State because it is a State highway (traffic calming is a major reason).

Definitely agree with that. The first thing that happened when California 274/Balboa Ave was decommissioned in 2001 was to spend some of the state's relinquishment money to convert the state highway to San Diego city street standards, which meant installation of more sidewalks, landscaped medians, public art on a chain link fence, and traffic signal modernization. More improvements are desired over time, but the remaining funds are being held to maintain the road and median landscaping.

Regards,
Andy

[AndyMax25]

Because SR 42 was replaced by I-105.

And yet signs on I-405 are still not updated to reflect this.

Actually, the new signs along southbound I-405 at the Florence/Manchester exit do reflect this by not having SR 42 shown.

https://maps.google.com/?ll=33.968723,-118.372579&spn=0.011229,0.01929&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=33.968669,-118.372505&panoid=0c2gnk8u0obmaPhHN9-Zng&cbp=12,130.65,,0,-0.4

[AndyMax25]

The reason for many of these relinquishments is because the local agencies want to make some change to the road that generally would not be done by the State because it is a State highway (traffic calming is a major reason).

Definitely agree with that. The first thing that happened when California 274/Balboa Ave was decommissioned in 2001 was to spend some of the state's relinquishment money to convert the state highway to San Diego city street standards, which meant installation of more sidewalks, landscaped medians, public art on a chain link fence, and traffic signal modernization. More improvements are desired over time, but the remaining funds are being held to maintain the road and median landscaping.

Very true, as the City of Santa Monica recently completed a complete pavement resurfacing of Lincoln Blvd.  The project also added continental style crosswalks, additional mid-block pedestrian crossing, video detection at the traffic signal intersections, and other non-State standard items.  A complete re-visioning of Lincoln Blvd is the next step for City planners.

[mrsman]

I think it's one thing to have scattered segments of a route relinquished to the local city. If Torrance takes control of its portion of CA-1 and it continues to be a state-maintained route in Redondo Beach and Lomita, then it makes sense to use trailblazers in the discontinuous segment to mark the route. If, however, virtually all of a route (CA-19) is relinquished, it makes no sense to mark it as a state highway when it isn't one. You already have perfectly good street names for navigation purposes, and in this instance CA-19 isn't a route that would be followed over a long distance by the vast majority of traffic on it. Although it's long, it's a local road, no different than Rosecrans or Imperial Highway.

That's right.  CA-19 is no longer needed.  Get rid of the old reference markers.  Greenout all CA-19 signs on intersecting freeways.  Have parallel long distance drivers take the 605.

On a similar note, here are some other worthless state highways signed in the L.A. area:

CA-213 Western Ave.

CA-107 Hawthorne Blvd.

CA-42 Manchester Ave.

CA-187 Venice Blvd.

CA-170 Highland Avenue section.

CA-2 Alvarado/Santa Monica Blvd. section.

[NE2]

On a similar note, here are some other worthless state highways signed in the L.A. area:

CA-213 Western Ave.

CA-107 Hawthorne Blvd.

CA-42 Manchester Ave.

CA-187 Venice Blvd.

CA-170 Highland Avenue section.

CA-2 Alvarado/Santa Monica Blvd. section.

Are you speaking from experience or just looking at a map and pronouncing from on high? Because, unless things have changed recently, SR 187 is not signed.
https://www.aaroads.com/california/ca-187.html
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6693.0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/187_%28slang%29

[emory]

That's right.  CA-19 is no longer needed.  Get rid of the old reference markers.  Greenout all CA-19 signs on intersecting freeways.  Have parallel long distance drivers take the 605.

Don't forget, Rosemead Blvd between Pico Rivera and Temple City is unsigned CA 164. There don't appear to be any plans to either sign it or relinquish it either.

On a similar note, here are some other worthless state highways signed in the L.A. area:

[..]

CA-42 Manchester Ave.

[...]

CA-2 Alvarado/Santa Monica Blvd. section.

CA 42 was decommissioned years ago, and any signs that are still up need to be removed. Also I don't see CalTrans giving up CA 2's current routing in Echo Park until they find some way to connect the Glendale Freeway to US 101, no matter how many decades it takes.

[DTComposer]

On a similar note, here are some other worthless state highways signed in the L.A. area:

CA-213 Western Ave.

CA-107 Hawthorne Blvd.

CA-42 Manchester Ave.

CA-187 Venice Blvd.

CA-170 Highland Avenue section.

CA-2 Alvarado/Santa Monica Blvd. section.

Are you speaking from experience or just looking at a map and pronouncing from on high? Because, unless things have changed recently, SR 187 is not signed.
https://www.aaroads.com/california/ca-187.html
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6693.0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/187_%28slang%29

To clarify, I only used CA-19 as an example of how I would write a route definition. I agree that its original purpose has been superseded by I-605 and I-405, and therefore is probably not necessary to stay in the state system.

However, I could see something similar happening on CA-39, where Huntington Beach, Garden Grove, Buena Park, etc. take control of maintenance, yet that route has no parallel alternative route (if you're going from Huntington Beach to La Habra, you're gonna take CA-39 rather than trekking over to CA-57 or I-605), so it should remain in the state system.

[The High Plains Traveler]

However, I could see something similar happening on CA-39, where Huntington Beach, Garden Grove, Buena Park, etc. take control of maintenance, yet that route has no parallel alternative route (if you're going from Huntington Beach to La Habra, you're gonna take CA-39 rather than trekking over to CA-57 or I-605), so it should remain in the state system.

Or, you could take Beach Blvd.

Just to reinforce my point above that if the state doesn't maintain a road, it shouldn't have a state route number.