CA-1 Relinquishment in Santa Monica

[NE2]

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

Opinion, not point.

[Alps]

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

Opinion, not point.

A point is an opinion.

[emory]

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

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

I was mistaken. The portion of CA 1 that runs along the beach to I-10 is still maintained by CalTrans. Only Lincoln Blvd was relinquished.

[Indyroads]

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.

The only time a state road/state highway/state route number should be maintained post state ownership is in instances where the road designation is needed for route continuity. ala SR-1 is needed because it creates a gap in the highway system. Otherwise it would make sense to remove the route number. This is to prevent disjoined sections of a previously joined roadway.

Another option is that the city of Santa Monica could designate it as City route 1 (coming up with their own highway sheild etc.)

Indiana decommissioned a section of SR-144 south of Greenwood and it has since been signed as CR-144 with the blue pentagon shield. It isn't ideal, but at least it keeps the route contiguous...

[Quillz]

Is California the only state that apparently has legal definition of routes entirely different from the actual apparent routes themselves? This is why odd (and incredibly stupid) things like this happen, such as CA-42 still being well-signed in certain areas despite it not actually existing for a long time now, or CA-1 apparently not running through Santa Monica anymore (even though motorists would assume otherwise).

Pretty much agree with just about everyone else here: no one cares who maintains a road, and if anything, routes seemingly disappearing and then reappearing only makes things confusing. I remember having trouble following CA-111 through Palm Springs, because the route seemingly just ended, only to run south again miles later.

[NE2]

Is California the only state that apparently has legal definition of routes entirely different from the actual apparent routes themselves?

No, but maybe the only one where most of the numbers match (i.e. not Minnesota). I don't know how well Mississippi, South Dakota, or any others that legislatively define their routes do this.

[emory]

Is California the only state that apparently has legal definition of routes entirely different from the actual apparent routes themselves? This is why odd (and incredibly stupid) things like this happen, such as CA-42 still being well-signed in certain areas despite it not actually existing for a long time now, or CA-1 apparently not running through Santa Monica anymore (even though motorists would assume otherwise).

Pretty much agree with just about everyone else here: no one cares who maintains a road, and if anything, routes seemingly disappearing and then reappearing only makes things confusing. I remember having trouble following CA-111 through Palm Springs, because the route seemingly just ended, only to run south again miles later.

California's legal definitions of routes include sub-letters noting relinquished portions unless the portions are large enough. Example, route 2's definition:

302.  (a) Route 2 is from:
   (1) The point where Santa Monica Boulevard crosses the city limits
of Santa Monica at Centinela Avenue to Route 405 in Los Angeles.
   (2) The point where Santa Monica Boulevard crosses the city limits
of West Hollywood into the City of Los Angeles at La Brea Avenue to
Route 101 in Los Angeles.
   (3) Route 101 in Los Angeles to Route 210 in La Canada-Flintridge
via Glendale.
   (4) Route 210 in La Canada-Flintridge to Route 138 via Wrightwood.

Also California's legal definitions of routes also include portions that have yet to be built, and in most cases, never will be built. For example, LA locals know the southern terminus of CA 14 at its intersection with I-5, but its legal definition states its southern terminus is at CA 1 in Santa Monica. Another is I-605, which ends at I-405/CA 22, but is also defined as ending slightly further south at CA 1. As for CA 42 signs that are still up, that's just ignorance.

I still like the idea of keeping the green spade shields, but replacing CALIFORNIA with the city's name.

[NE2]

As for CA 42 signs that are still up, that's just ignorance.

But even back in the day they disagreed with the legal definition, which (after 1968) was Route 105.

from http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239512~5511841:-Verso--State-Highway-Map,-Californ (also note that 42/105 officially ended at I-605)

[TheStranger]

Continuing on this vein...isn't 91 officially relinquished as a state highway west of 110?

I bring that up because...I've seen at least 4 shields for it west of there, most notably west of 405 (where the newest exit signage for Artesia Boulevard DOES include 91 shields as seen at http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/6975481741/in/set-72157629567436591 for one example).

https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/1455171_10102239715538933_691932275_n.jpg

Route 19 is also an interesting situation in that in some cases, the signage has been scraped off:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/10794984804/ (off I-105)

In other spots, it remains, such as this example from I-5 that exists NORTH of the presently defined route:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/10399632934/in/set-72157636676683316

IIRC, 19 is also signed off of I-405 (south of the present legislative definition).

[Quillz]

Is California the only state that apparently has legal definition of routes entirely different from the actual apparent routes themselves? This is why odd (and incredibly stupid) things like this happen, such as CA-42 still being well-signed in certain areas despite it not actually existing for a long time now, or CA-1 apparently not running through Santa Monica anymore (even though motorists would assume otherwise).

Pretty much agree with just about everyone else here: no one cares who maintains a road, and if anything, routes seemingly disappearing and then reappearing only makes things confusing. I remember having trouble following CA-111 through Palm Springs, because the route seemingly just ended, only to run south again miles later.

California's legal definitions of routes include sub-letters noting relinquished portions unless the portions are large enough. Example, route 2's definition:

302.  (a) Route 2 is from:
   (1) The point where Santa Monica Boulevard crosses the city limits
of Santa Monica at Centinela Avenue to Route 405 in Los Angeles.
   (2) The point where Santa Monica Boulevard crosses the city limits
of West Hollywood into the City of Los Angeles at La Brea Avenue to
Route 101 in Los Angeles.
   (3) Route 101 in Los Angeles to Route 210 in La Canada-Flintridge
via Glendale.
   (4) Route 210 in La Canada-Flintridge to Route 138 via Wrightwood.

Also California's legal definitions of routes also include portions that have yet to be built, and in most cases, never will be built. For example, LA locals know the southern terminus of CA 14 at its intersection with I-5, but its legal definition states its southern terminus is at CA 1 in Santa Monica. Another is I-605, which ends at I-405/CA 22, but is also defined as ending slightly further south at CA 1. As for CA 42 signs that are still up, that's just ignorance.

I still like the idea of keeping the green spade shields, but replacing CALIFORNIA with the city's name.

That would be fine with me. Routes should be signed first and foremost for navigation, and not legal definition. It's the same issue I have with California's bizarre aversion to concurrences: there are instances where CA-1 seems to just disappear when it's officially concurrent with US-101. I can understand the routes that are split by the Sierra Nevada, as they have "implied connections," but then you have other routes, like CA-77 and CA-164, that only exist via sharing the same road as another route.

[NE2]

but then you have other routes, like CA-77 and CA-164, that only exist via sharing the same road as another route.

Hasn't SR 77 been signed recently, with SR 185 ending where it begins?
112 and 260, on the other hand...

[TheStranger]

but then you have other routes, like CA-77 and CA-164, that only exist via sharing the same road as another route.

Hasn't SR 77 been signed recently, with SR 185 ending where it begins?

One Route 77 shield on that short segment of the High Street freeway spur, IIRC.  Given the shortness of what exists as 77, that really should just be folded into 185 officially (with the never-to-be-built 77 removed), but as this entire thread has highlighted, California's emphasis of signing to reflect legislation instead of navigational functionality no doubt has helped keep 77 on the books.

112 and 260, on the other hand...

112 now has one sign:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/sets/72157629231541792/

(Previously, this had been signed for Route 61)

[emory]

Was driving down Lincoln Blvd in Santa Monica and noticed these signs had gone up. For once a city actually follows through with the legal requirement!

[oscar]

I saw those signs on Lincoln Blvd., during a drive yesterday down the PCH from Oxnard to Dana Point.
I looked for similar signs on other relinquished CA 1 segments in Newport Beach and Dana Point.  (Those relinquishments, like the one in Santa Monica, are already in effect and hard-wired into the Streets and Highway Code, unlike other relinquishments in the S&H Code which are conditional and may or may not have been carried out.)  I didn't see any southbound in either city.  Newport Beach had one standard CA 1 sign within its relinquishment zone.  I saw what looked like a pair of them in Dana Point just south of Golden Lantern, also on a relinquished segment, but that was at night and I couldn't be sure that there wasn't a "To" banner in that sign assembly.

Are there similar signs on relinquished segments of other routes, such as CA 19?

EDIT:  I went back to Dana Point earlier today (Saturday 8/2).  The CA 1 markers I saw there look slightly non-standard, with flat bottoms rather than the slight curvature typical of Caltrans state route markers, but they're pretty close, and nothing like in Santa Monica.  No "TO" banners.

I also checked out CA 39, another route chopped up by relinquishments.  One segment had county route 8 (or N8) markers in place of the former CA 39 markers.  Other relinquished segments had no route signage, or just a few standard-looking CA 39 markers with no "TO" banners added.

[DTComposer]

Are there similar signs on relinquished segments of other routes, such as CA 19?

CA-19 has been removed from new signs within the Los Alamitos Traffic Circle (former terminus of route), however, newer signs on I-405 announcing Lakewood Boulevard do include the CA-19 shield (those signs went up in the last year or so).

There are still reassurance markers along the route at various points in Long Beach and Lakewood.

[billtm]

Why not give it to Santa Monica temporarily, let them do the repaving and improvements with their money, and then take it back once they are done to maintain the highway?

[TheStranger]

Why not give it to Santa Monica temporarily, let them do the repaving and improvements with their money, and then take it back once they are done to maintain the highway?

1. CalTrans has little incentive to take back road maintenance, ESPECIALLY when cities want more control of roads anyway (i.e. Sacramento wanting former Route 160 under their control so they could match the streetlights to city standards, rather than what CalTrans would be using for state routes)

2. Relinquishment is generally permanent.

[silverback1065]

Why not give it to Santa Monica temporarily, let them do the repaving and improvements with their money, and then take it back once they are done to maintain the highway?

1. CalTrans has little incentive to take back road maintenance, ESPECIALLY when cities want more control of roads anyway (i.e. Sacramento wanting former Route 160 under their control so they could match the streetlights to city standards, rather than what CalTrans would be using for state routes)

2. Relinquishment is generally permanent.

Has there ever been a situation where this has happened?  A decommissioning of a state road then years later a recommissioning of the old alignment?

[TheStranger]

Why not give it to Santa Monica temporarily, let them do the repaving and improvements with their money, and then take it back once they are done to maintain the highway?

1. CalTrans has little incentive to take back road maintenance, ESPECIALLY when cities want more control of roads anyway (i.e. Sacramento wanting former Route 160 under their control so they could match the streetlights to city standards, rather than what CalTrans would be using for state routes)

2. Relinquishment is generally permanent.

Has there ever been a situation where this has happened?  A decommissioning of a state road then years later a recommissioning of the old alignment?

I can think of one (that doesn't fall quite under the same category as, say, the examples brought up in this thread - the newer ones of which have specific "state cannot regain control of the road maintenance" clauses added in):

Route 58 in Santa Margarita runs along a former alignment of US 101 which was bypassed decades ago, but then was added onto the newly created 58 in the midst of the 1964 renumbering.

But I'd have to verify this via old maps to see if there really was a period where that road was unnumbered and not state maintained.

[sdmichael]

It wasn't ever relinquished. It was just added to then State 178 (LRN 58) and removed from LRN 2 (US 101). There are many instances of this throughout the state where a bypass has been built around a former State Highway junction. US 80 / State 79 come to mind - 79 now has L mileage from Route 8 to the Old Hwy 80 / Route 79 Junction reflecting this.

[andy3175]

It wasn't ever relinquished. It was just added to then State 178 (LRN 58) and removed from LRN 2 (US 101). There are many instances of this throughout the state where a bypass has been built around a former State Highway junction. US 80 / State 79 come to mind - 79 now has L mileage from Route 8 to the Old Hwy 80 / Route 79 Junction reflecting this.

I agree with sdmichael and would add that usually whenever a state highway in California ends at another state highway, if the other state highway is realigned, the first state highway's terminus is usually repositioned to connect to the other state highway's new alignment. This is typically accomplished using the means sdmichael mentioned for both SR 79's southern terminus and SR 58's western terminus.

Of course there are exceptions to this; I'm sure The Stranger could tell us about what happened to SR 193's western terminus when SR 65 was realigned out of downtown Lincoln.

[emory]

Why not give it to Santa Monica temporarily, let them do the repaving and improvements with their money, and then take it back once they are done to maintain the highway?

1. CalTrans has little incentive to take back road maintenance, ESPECIALLY when cities want more control of roads anyway (i.e. Sacramento wanting former Route 160 under their control so they could match the streetlights to city standards, rather than what CalTrans would be using for state routes)

2. Relinquishment is generally permanent.

Has there ever been a situation where this has happened?  A decommissioning of a state road then years later a recommissioning of the old alignment?

Section 81 of the Streets and Highways Code prevents the state from taking back relinquished roads.

[TheStranger]

Of course there are exceptions to this; I'm sure The Stranger could tell us about what happened to SR 193's western terminus when SR 65 was realigned out of downtown Lincoln.

I recall that 193 now ends at the Lincoln city limit, without having been ever extended onto old Route 65/old US 99E, or without taking a new alignment (say, Ferrari Ranch Road) to the Lincoln bypass.

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.

[billtm]

Why not give it to Santa Monica temporarily, let them do the repaving and improvements with their money, and then take it back once they are done to maintain the highway?

1. CalTrans has little incentive to take back road maintenance, ESPECIALLY when cities want more control of roads anyway (i.e. Sacramento wanting former Route 160 under their control so they could match the streetlights to city standards, rather than what CalTrans would be using for state routes)

2. Relinquishment is generally permanent.

Has there ever been a situation where this has happened?  A decommissioning of a state road then years later a recommissioning of the old alignment?

Section 81 of the Streets and Highways Code prevents the state from taking back relinquished roads.

Well that's stupid.

[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