AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them  (Read 25090 times)

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2573
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: April 07, 2020, 07:34:36 PM
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #25 on: September 16, 2016, 12:51:02 PM »

I agree with Caltrans decision to get rid of signage on surface streets.  There is no reason why traffic should be directed on one surface street over another.  For all intents and purposes, through most of Orange County, there is no practical difference between Beach Blvd vs. Magnolia vs. Brookhurst.  All are multi-lane arterials serving their own piece of suburbia.  Yes, Beach Blvd may be longer, but as said by others, there is no reason why people can't use maps, GPS, or other devices to get from place to place.  These do not need Caltrans trailblazers.

The roads that do need trailblazers are highways that become city streets through very small sections, especially if they change direction within the city.  In the greater LA area, the only highway that fits that bill is CA-1.  Every other existing designation (such as CA-83, CA-90, CA-72, CA-39, CA-19, CA-107, CA-187, CA-213, CA-2 [along SM Blvd], CA-27) should be removed.
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3817
  • Last Login: April 06, 2020, 12:47:39 PM
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #26 on: September 16, 2016, 02:43:20 PM »

I agree with Caltrans decision to get rid of signage on surface streets.  There is no reason why traffic should be directed on one surface street over another.  For all intents and purposes, through most of Orange County, there is no practical difference between Beach Blvd vs. Magnolia vs. Brookhurst.  All are multi-lane arterials serving their own piece of suburbia.  Yes, Beach Blvd may be longer, but as said by others, there is no reason why people can't use maps, GPS, or other devices to get from place to place.  These do not need Caltrans trailblazers.

The roads that do need trailblazers are highways that become city streets through very small sections, especially if they change direction within the city.  In the greater LA area, the only highway that fits that bill is CA-1.  Every other existing designation (such as CA-83, CA-90, CA-72, CA-39, CA-19, CA-107, CA-187, CA-213, CA-2 [along SM Blvd], CA-27) should be removed.

Route 27 at least south of US 101 still serves an area that isn't super urbanized.  IIRC Route 83 from Route 71 north to Route 60 isn't overly developed either.

At the same time, if a regional/suburban route offers a distinct commute corridor that is clearly more important than nearby roads, shouldn't it retain its state route designation?  The example that comes to mind would be Route 238 between the MacArthur Freeway/I-580 in Castro Valley and I-680 in Fremont.

Logged
Chris Sampang

DTComposer

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 856
  • Location: San Jose
  • Last Login: April 07, 2020, 03:48:40 PM
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #27 on: September 16, 2016, 03:52:39 PM »

I agree with Caltrans decision to get rid of signage on surface streets.  There is no reason why traffic should be directed on one surface street over another.  For all intents and purposes, through most of Orange County, there is no practical difference between Beach Blvd vs. Magnolia vs. Brookhurst.

I disagree here:
Beach almost always has at least one more lane in each direction than Magnolia or Brookhurst;
Beach runs through almost entirely commercial districts as opposed to Magnolia or Brookhurst which mainly run through residential districts;
Beach connects the downtowns and/or civic centers of Huntington Beach, Westminster, and Buena Park, as well as a significant tourist destination in Knott's Berry Farm;
Beach runs from PCH all the way to Whittier Boulevard, whereas Brookhurst and Magnolia both end several miles short (at Commonwealth).

I'm not saying that Brookhurst, Magnolia and others aren't major arterials, but Beach is well above them, and is one of the few surface streets in the L.A. region that still deserve state highway status.

Logged

Occidental Tourist

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 377
  • Last Login: March 10, 2020, 11:19:15 PM
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #28 on: September 16, 2016, 06:36:34 PM »

I agree with Caltrans decision to get rid of signage on surface streets.  There is no reason why traffic should be directed on one surface street over another.  For all intents and purposes, through most of Orange County, there is no practical difference between Beach Blvd vs. Magnolia vs. Brookhurst.

I disagree here:
Beach almost always has at least one more lane in each direction than Magnolia or Brookhurst;
Beach runs through almost entirely commercial districts as opposed to Magnolia or Brookhurst which mainly run through residential districts;
Beach connects the downtowns and/or civic centers of Huntington Beach, Westminster, and Buena Park, as well as a significant tourist destination in Knott's Berry Farm;
Beach runs from PCH all the way to Whittier Boulevard, whereas Brookhurst and Magnolia both end several miles short (at Commonwealth).

I'm not saying that Brookhurst, Magnolia and others aren't major arterials, but Beach is well above them, and is one of the few surface streets in the L.A. region that still deserve state highway status.



Beach is also a designated Smart Street with traffic light timing designed to facilitate interregional travel as opposed to address local traffic.
Logged

Occidental Tourist

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 377
  • Last Login: March 10, 2020, 11:19:15 PM
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #29 on: September 16, 2016, 06:38:52 PM »

I agree with Caltrans decision to get rid of signage on surface streets.  There is no reason why traffic should be directed on one surface street over another.  For all intents and purposes, through most of Orange County, there is no practical difference between Beach Blvd vs. Magnolia vs. Brookhurst.  All are multi-lane arterials serving their own piece of suburbia.  Yes, Beach Blvd may be longer, but as said by others, there is no reason why people can't use maps, GPS, or other devices to get from place to place.  These do not need Caltrans trailblazers.

The roads that do need trailblazers are highways that become city streets through very small sections, especially if they change direction within the city.  In the greater LA area, the only highway that fits that bill is CA-1.  Every other existing designation (such as CA-83, CA-90, CA-72, CA-39, CA-19, CA-107, CA-187, CA-213, CA-2 [along SM Blvd], CA-27) should be removed.

But the issue is relinquishment.  If the Legislature is fine with unsigned state highways on urban streets, then I agree that it's sensible to de-sign the above-indicated routes with  one exception:  I'd keep Route 83 simply because the southern half of it is rural.
Logged

andy3175

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1300
  • Location: San Diego, California, USA
  • Last Login: April 04, 2020, 11:36:18 PM
    • AARoads
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #30 on: September 17, 2016, 02:16:08 AM »

Another example of a discontinuous route is 54, with a never-built segment in the middle with an implied connection over a county road, plus a relinquished segment within El Cajon city limits. (That relinquishment, unusually, does not require the city or Caltrans to pretend that 54 still exists within city limits. An End 54 sign at the southern city limits officializes the truncation.)

Wasn't the middle section signed as Route 54 at one time (unlike the Route 39 gap north of Whittier and south of Azusa)?

Even before SR 54 was relinquished to city control within El Cajon in the late 1990s, I don't recall S17 being signed as part of SR 54. The reason is that SR 54 was slowly extending its way east from Bonita and Paradise Hills toward Spring Valley. The connection of SR 54 to SR 125 essentially extended the freeway segment of the route as far as it is currently through the 2000s. But the section between SR 125 and SR 94 has not been built, and S17 remains signed on that county-maintained route. I am not sure how much longer the north-south segment of SR 54 north of SR 94 will remain. It depends on whether Caltrans is actively seeking decommissioning of that portion of the highway. Route maps for proposed state highways show SR 54 is intended to be realigned a bit to the east for an eventual expressway connection to I-8. But given that is not within the SANDAG regional transportation plan, I don't know when if ever SR 54 will be placed onto a new alignment for an expressway connection between SR 94 and I-8 east of El Cajon.
Logged
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6550
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:57:09 AM
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #31 on: September 18, 2016, 12:32:37 AM »

I agree with Caltrans decision to get rid of signage on surface streets.  There is no reason why traffic should be directed on one surface street over another.  For all intents and purposes, through most of Orange County, there is no practical difference between Beach Blvd vs. Magnolia vs. Brookhurst.  All are multi-lane arterials serving their own piece of suburbia.  Yes, Beach Blvd may be longer, but as said by others, there is no reason why people can't use maps, GPS, or other devices to get from place to place.  These do not need Caltrans trailblazers.

The roads that do need trailblazers are highways that become city streets through very small sections, especially if they change direction within the city.  In the greater LA area, the only highway that fits that bill is CA-1.  Every other existing designation (such as CA-83, CA-90, CA-72, CA-39, CA-19, CA-107, CA-187, CA-213, CA-2 [along SM Blvd], CA-27) should be removed.

But the issue is relinquishment.  If the Legislature is fine with unsigned state highways on urban streets, then I agree that it's sensible to de-sign the above-indicated routes with  one exception:  I'd keep Route 83 simply because the southern half of it is rural.
I'd add one other requirement for relinquishment or de-signage:  that the essential through-traffic function of the signed route has been effectively obviated by the presence of a nearby freeway or expressway.  Of the routes cited above, I'd retain CA 27 because of the section through the Santa Monica Mountains; it functions as a major intraregional connector between the Malibu area and the San Fernando Valley -- and its function is not closely duplicated by a limited-access facility.  And I agree with the retention of CA 83, primarily as a "feeder" from the CA 71 freeway/expressway corridor to central Ontario (and the airport!).  I have given my reasons for retaining CA 39 south of La Habra in a previous post to this thread (its historic equivalency value to Beach Boulevard).  But the others (107, 213, etc.) could be disposed of without much effect, as any through function is duplicated or mirrored by more efficient nearby facilities. 
Logged

Quillz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2513
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: July 24, 2019, 12:25:24 PM
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #32 on: September 18, 2016, 02:37:08 PM »

I always found the discontinuous state highway routes rather mysterious. Are there any other states that have discontinuous state highways like California? I can't think of any where I live in Wisconsin.
I don't think it's nearly as common because most states do the logical thing and maintain signage for navigation, regardless of who actually owns/maintains the road. Gotta love California and their legislative route number system.
Logged
US Highways: 1 / 2 / 6 / 12 / 14 / 16 / 18 / 20 / 26 / 30 / 50 / 64 / 66 / 84 / 85 / 87 / 91 / 93 / 95 / 97 / 99 / 101 / 189 / 191 / 201 / 285 / 287 / 385 / 395
Interstate Highways: 5 / 10 / 15 / 17 / 25 / 40 / 45 / 70 / 80 / 84 / 89 / 90 / 93 / 95

Quillz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2513
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: July 24, 2019, 12:25:24 PM
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #33 on: September 18, 2016, 02:40:28 PM »

I agree with Caltrans decision to get rid of signage on surface streets.  There is no reason why traffic should be directed on one surface street over another.  For all intents and purposes, through most of Orange County, there is no practical difference between Beach Blvd vs. Magnolia vs. Brookhurst.  All are multi-lane arterials serving their own piece of suburbia.  Yes, Beach Blvd may be longer, but as said by others, there is no reason why people can't use maps, GPS, or other devices to get from place to place.  These do not need Caltrans trailblazers.

The roads that do need trailblazers are highways that become city streets through very small sections, especially if they change direction within the city.  In the greater LA area, the only highway that fits that bill is CA-1.  Every other existing designation (such as CA-83, CA-90, CA-72, CA-39, CA-19, CA-107, CA-187, CA-213, CA-2 [along SM Blvd], CA-27) should be removed.
I agree with some of this, but CA-27 is not a route that should be removed. It one of three viable Santa Monica Mountains crossings west of the 405, the others being N1 (Malibu Canyon Road) and N9 (Kanan Road). I actually don't think CA-23 is a particular good crossing, and it realistically should be realigned onto Kanan Road. CA-27 is the best way to get from the Valley to Malibu, especially as the 101 becomes heavily congested as soon as you leave the Calabasas area.
Logged
US Highways: 1 / 2 / 6 / 12 / 14 / 16 / 18 / 20 / 26 / 30 / 50 / 64 / 66 / 84 / 85 / 87 / 91 / 93 / 95 / 97 / 99 / 101 / 189 / 191 / 201 / 285 / 287 / 385 / 395
Interstate Highways: 5 / 10 / 15 / 17 / 25 / 40 / 45 / 70 / 80 / 84 / 89 / 90 / 93 / 95

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3088
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: April 07, 2020, 07:14:31 PM
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #34 on: September 18, 2016, 10:52:08 PM »

I always found the discontinuous state highway routes rather mysterious. Are there any other states that have discontinuous state highways like California? I can't think of any where I live in Wisconsin.

Oklahoma for instance has a SH 74 that is no longer continuous (the gap goes through most of Oklahoma City)

Indiana has several routes with gaps despite an existing road connection between segments, if I'm not mistaken.

Yes, Indiana does this all the time, we have several routes that make no sense now, see lafayette as an example. 
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10969
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 07:27:34 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #35 on: September 18, 2016, 11:03:08 PM »

I always liked how FDOT handled relinquishment by having the old state highway become a county route of the same number.  Basically you could go on a long route west like FL 40 and have it become a CR for a portion of it's distance.  You'd think with all the lettered county routes in California that something like that would fit right in for route continuity.  It actually works really well with CA 59 and J59...the casual observer would only know that they were on "highway 59."  But then again California more subscribes to the theory of route signage is for showing maintenance rather than navigation in most instances.  The weird part is that there is so many inconsistencies with legislative definitions where multiplexes are signed in the field but are gapped on paper or signage exists in areas that aren't under control of Caltrans like Grant Grove with CA 180.
Logged

roadfro

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3914
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Reno, NV
  • Last Login: April 07, 2020, 01:39:29 PM
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #36 on: September 19, 2016, 01:19:25 AM »

I always liked how FDOT handled relinquishment by having the old state highway become a county route of the same number.  Basically you could go on a long route west like FL 40 and have it become a CR for a portion of it's distance.  You'd think with all the lettered county routes in California that something like that would fit right in for route continuity.  It actually works really well with CA 59 and J59...the casual observer would only know that they were on "highway 59."  But then again California more subscribes to the theory of route signage is for showing maintenance rather than navigation in most instances.  The weird part is that there is so many inconsistencies with legislative definitions where multiplexes are signed in the field but are gapped on paper or signage exists in areas that aren't under control of Caltrans like Grant Grove with CA 180.

Regarding the bolded statement: Doesn't California technically subscribe to the theory that route signage is more for navigation? I say this because when state routes are relinquished, they usually add to legislative description (or elsewhere) something along the lines of "the City of YYY shall maintain signage directing motorists to the continuation of Route XX". (Whether or not this stipulation is consistently followed is another story...)
Logged
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3817
  • Last Login: April 06, 2020, 12:47:39 PM
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #37 on: September 19, 2016, 01:28:21 AM »

I always liked how FDOT handled relinquishment by having the old state highway become a county route of the same number.  Basically you could go on a long route west like FL 40 and have it become a CR for a portion of it's distance.  You'd think with all the lettered county routes in California that something like that would fit right in for route continuity.  It actually works really well with CA 59 and J59...the casual observer would only know that they were on "highway 59."  But then again California more subscribes to the theory of route signage is for showing maintenance rather than navigation in most instances.  The weird part is that there is so many inconsistencies with legislative definitions where multiplexes are signed in the field but are gapped on paper or signage exists in areas that aren't under control of Caltrans like Grant Grove with CA 180.

Regarding the bolded statement: Doesn't California technically subscribe to the theory that route signage is more for navigation? I say this because when state routes are relinquished, they usually add to legislative description (or elsewhere) something along the lines of "the City of YYY shall maintain signage directing motorists to the continuation of Route XX". (Whether or not this stipulation is consistently followed is another story...)

Part of it is Caltrans not even following that stipulation themselves in their own practices, even in routes that aren't unsigned roads (so not examples like Route 35 south of Route 9, or the unsigned Route 181 corridor near Guerneville).

Route 128 west of Winters, at least eight or nine years ago, had like one westbound shield heading through/out of town, then nothing for miles (other than the callboxes noting that it was a state road).  I also recall very clearly in the last five years Route 18 having no shields between Route 138 in Palmdale and at least US 395 near Victorville.
Logged
Chris Sampang

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10969
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 07:27:34 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #38 on: September 19, 2016, 07:14:47 AM »

I always liked how FDOT handled relinquishment by having the old state highway become a county route of the same number.  Basically you could go on a long route west like FL 40 and have it become a CR for a portion of it's distance.  You'd think with all the lettered county routes in California that something like that would fit right in for route continuity.  It actually works really well with CA 59 and J59...the casual observer would only know that they were on "highway 59."  But then again California more subscribes to the theory of route signage is for showing maintenance rather than navigation in most instances.  The weird part is that there is so many inconsistencies with legislative definitions where multiplexes are signed in the field but are gapped on paper or signage exists in areas that aren't under control of Caltrans like Grant Grove with CA 180.

Regarding the bolded statement: Doesn't California technically subscribe to the theory that route signage is more for navigation? I say this because when state routes are relinquished, they usually add to legislative description (or elsewhere) something along the lines of "the City of YYY shall maintain signage directing motorists to the continuation of Route XX". (Whether or not this stipulation is consistently followed is another story...)

I believe that they actually do at times.  I don't want to quote this as gospel without jumping over to cahighways but I'm fairly certain an example would be the CA 198 expressway in Kings County.  I'm fairly certain that the legislative description still includes that part of the route even though there is a relinquishment.  WHICH hence might explain why there are plentiful signs along that highway and why that might not be the case on others.  Another wrinkle in this might be Caltrans Districts themselves.  It seems like sometimes a section is relinquished in most instances the signed aren't pulled right away....but rather just disappear over time and aren't replaced consistently.  Then again if the section of a highway is relinquished but still technically remains in the legislative description, doesn't that mean that it's the responsibility of whatever locality to put the green shields up?  Going back to that example with Florida, that's actually how the practice actually worked for a long time.  The FL State Route shield would remain but someone would usually slap a "C" on the sign to denote it was county maintained.  As the signs weathered significantly they were replaced with the cheaper MUTCD County Route marker.  If I recall correctly, aren't most older spades actually baked relective green paint with vinyl numbers affixed to them?  That design always seemed to last a lot longer and usually you can tell when see one because the green part of the sign looks good while the numbers are yellowed out or have a stained appearance.
Logged

coatimundi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 797
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Marina, CA
  • Last Login: March 24, 2020, 11:28:13 AM
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #39 on: September 19, 2016, 09:25:50 AM »

I don't want to quote this as gospel without jumping over to cahighways but I'm fairly certain an example would be the CA 198 expressway in Kings County.  I'm fairly certain that the legislative description still includes that part of the route even though there is a relinquishment.

I think you're implying here that the 198 freeway and expressway were relinquished to Hanford and Kings County after its more recent improvements, but it's just surface streets that were relinquished. For instance, the streets that used to intersect 198 at grade and were rebuilt as interchanges by Caltrans, like 12th Avenue, the new portion of that street, passing under or over the freeway, was relinquished.

The examples of signed relinquishments are more in cities though. For instance, 130 is signed well west of its official ending at the San Jose city limits, including at both the 101 and 680 interchanges. It's not technically a state highway for a few miles away from those interchanges, but the signs are used to direct people to that highway.
Meanwhile, 84 isn't signed at all within West Sacramento.
Logged

lordsutch

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1054
  • Last Login: April 02, 2020, 09:35:43 AM
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #40 on: September 19, 2016, 10:10:25 AM »

I always found the discontinuous state highway routes rather mysterious. Are there any other states that have discontinuous state highways like California? I can't think of any where I live in Wisconsin.

Arkansas has quite a few examples (not to mention US 63). There are also several examples in Mississippi, some of which are proposed to be completed in the future (MS 15 being the most notable).
Logged

oscar

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 7544
  • Age: 64
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:35:54 AM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #41 on: September 19, 2016, 11:26:26 AM »

I don't want to quote this as gospel without jumping over to cahighways but I'm fairly certain an example would be the CA 198 expressway in Kings County.  I'm fairly certain that the legislative description still includes that part of the route even though there is a relinquishment.

I think you're implying here that the 198 freeway and expressway were relinquished to Hanford and Kings County after its more recent improvements, but it's just surface streets that were relinquished. For instance, the streets that used to intersect 198 at grade and were rebuilt as interchanges by Caltrans, like 12th Avenue, the new portion of that street, passing under or over the freeway, was relinquished.

Indeed, not only does cahighways.org not show any relinquishment for that part of CA 198, neither does the statutory route definition in the Streets and Highway Code (specifically section 498).

The statute doesn't specifically authorize transfer of cross streets that are no longer part of route 198, once the route was realigned either above or below the streets. But I'm not sure that such specific authorization is needed, where there is no break created in the state highway.
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

myosh_tino

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2714
  • Silicon Valley Roadgeek

  • Age: 46
  • Location: Cupertino, CA
  • Last Login: April 07, 2020, 07:57:00 PM
    • Silicon Valley Roads @ Markyville.com
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #42 on: September 19, 2016, 01:25:01 PM »

The examples of signed relinquishments are more in cities though. For instance, 130 is signed well west of its official ending at the San Jose city limits, including at both the 101 and 680 interchanges. It's not technically a state highway for a few miles away from those interchanges, but the signs are used to direct people to that highway.

If it was well signed, it isn't any longer.  Our local transit agency is adding a BRT line down the middle of Alum Rock Ave/CA-130 so just about all existing street lighting and signals have been or will be replaced.  Additionally, while CA-130 appears on exit signs on US 101, it has never appeared on signs along I-680.

Doing a quick "drive", via GMSV, down Alum Rock starting at US 101, the first mention of CA-130 is just before the turn-off onto Mt Hamilton Road.

Oddly enough, Google Maps still shows CA-130 beginning at US 101.
Logged
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3088
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: April 07, 2020, 07:14:31 PM
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #43 on: September 19, 2016, 07:00:07 PM »

I always found the discontinuous state highway routes rather mysterious. Are there any other states that have discontinuous state highways like California? I can't think of any where I live in Wisconsin.

Arkansas has quite a few examples (not to mention US 63). There are also several examples in Mississippi, some of which are proposed to be completed in the future (MS 15 being the most notable).

there's really a discontinuity in a US highway? I thought that wasn't allowed, except for US 2 and yellowstone.
Logged

sdmichael

Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #44 on: September 19, 2016, 07:49:38 PM »

US 101 has never been completed "technically" in California. The Golden Gate Bridge is NOT part of the State Highway system and is not a part of Route 101 (or Route 1). So, it has a gap.
Logged

lordsutch

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1054
  • Last Login: April 02, 2020, 09:35:43 AM
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #45 on: September 19, 2016, 08:00:16 PM »

I always found the discontinuous state highway routes rather mysterious. Are there any other states that have discontinuous state highways like California? I can't think of any where I live in Wisconsin.

Arkansas has quite a few examples (not to mention US 63). There are also several examples in Mississippi, some of which are proposed to be completed in the future (MS 15 being the most notable).

there's really a discontinuity in a US highway? I thought that wasn't allowed, except for US 2 and yellowstone.
US 63 simply disappears between its intersection with I-40 and its intersection with I-55. You could chalk this up to AHTD not signing multiplexes, and maybe they claimed it exists between the two points to AASHTO when US 63 was extended south of I-40 down to I-20, but there's no actual evidence it exists in the field.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10969
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 07:27:34 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #46 on: September 19, 2016, 09:44:23 PM »

I always found the discontinuous state highway routes rather mysterious. Are there any other states that have discontinuous state highways like California? I can't think of any where I live in Wisconsin.

Arkansas has quite a few examples (not to mention US 63). There are also several examples in Mississippi, some of which are proposed to be completed in the future (MS 15 being the most notable).

there's really a discontinuity in a US highway? I thought that wasn't allowed, except for US 2 and yellowstone.
US 63 simply disappears between its intersection with I-40 and its intersection with I-55. You could chalk this up to AHTD not signing multiplexes, and maybe they claimed it exists between the two points to AASHTO when US 63 was extended south of I-40 down to I-20, but there's no actual evidence it exists in the field.

US 422 has two segments that are a pretty good ways apart in PA.  US 10 still has a ferry gap via Lake Michigan and so did US 16 before it was replaced by I-96.

I don't want to quote this as gospel without jumping over to cahighways but I'm fairly certain an example would be the CA 198 expressway in Kings County.  I'm fairly certain that the legislative description still includes that part of the route even though there is a relinquishment.

I think you're implying here that the 198 freeway and expressway were relinquished to Hanford and Kings County after its more recent improvements, but it's just surface streets that were relinquished. For instance, the streets that used to intersect 198 at grade and were rebuilt as interchanges by Caltrans, like 12th Avenue, the new portion of that street, passing under or over the freeway, was relinquished.

The examples of signed relinquishments are more in cities though. For instance, 130 is signed well west of its official ending at the San Jose city limits, including at both the 101 and 680 interchanges. It's not technically a state highway for a few miles away from those interchanges, but the signs are used to direct people to that highway.
Meanwhile, 84 isn't signed at all within West Sacramento.

Yeah 4 AM wasn't the best time to do reference searches, I just tried to think of one but I knew there were other examples...especially in urban areas. 
« Last Edit: September 19, 2016, 09:47:07 PM by Max Rockatansky »
Logged

coatimundi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 797
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Marina, CA
  • Last Login: March 24, 2020, 11:28:13 AM
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #47 on: September 20, 2016, 03:25:54 AM »

Yeah 4 AM wasn't the best time to do reference searches, I just tried to think of one but I knew there were other examples...especially in urban areas.

No, because that's when the East Coast is just starting to get online. Next time, try between midnight and 2am. Smooth sailing.
The Hanford thing is confusing because there are so many details to it, but that's just because it was one of the only freeway upgrades created in the last few years, meaning that practically everything produced around it was digital and thus placed online. For instance, if the 91 or southern 215 had been constructed in the internet age, then I bet we'd have a ton of relinquishments showing up (or maybe it was just implied). The wording is confusing but, if you go out and look (remember: 12am-2am only), the City of Hanford has a document online about the relinquishment of 12th Avenue, complete with a map. You have to think of it like this: there was an intersection with a state highway, Caltrans owned that, and the freeway coming in removed it; so the 12th Avenue portion of the former intersection needed to be relinquished since it isn't otherwise part of a state highway. I believe there are some side roads though where the freeway portion actually bypassed the original routing.

I'm not going to spend this very narrow research window virtually driving down Santa Clara Street in San Jose, but I recall there being a stray trailblazer along Santa Clara somewhere. But I could be wrong, because it was years ago that I saw that, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's been removed if it was there at all.

238 is also signed on I-238 and I-580, even though it technically ends pretty much right away as it enters Hayward.
Then, down where 92 has been similarly abandoned, it is signed along former 185/238, but that's because the definition actually indicates that it should be signed despite it not existing: "For the relinquished former portion of Route 92, the City of Hayward shall maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 92 or to the state highway system, as applicable"
And that's because it aids travelers. People want to reach 92. For 185 though, most people probably never even knew what it was, especially inside Hayward. It was always just Mission Boulevard.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10969
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 07:27:34 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #48 on: September 20, 2016, 07:21:53 AM »

Heh....yeah that would require staying up past my 9:30-10 PM window to fall asleep, that ain't happenin.

Actually now that you mention the original pre-64 alignment of 198 between Hanford and NAS Lemoore, I did sort that out when I checked out the Parkfield Grade:

http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18621.25

Everything related to the original alignment is on reply 38, I also checked out history on 43 and the LRNs before.  Basically the pre-64 alignment split off from the current one at 7th Ave west on East Lacey.  From there it took 7th Street through downtown Hanford, Garner Ave to West Lacey, West Lacey to 14th Ave south to Armona, 14th Ave to Front Street, Front Street west to Hanford-Armona Road, Hanford-Armona west to Lemoore and 19th 1/2 Ave, 19th 1/2 Ave south to Jackson, and Jackson Ave west to where it merges back into the post-64 route.

Basically 198 was all over the place and zig-zagged through all the little farm towns in Kings County.  I have a suspicion about Grangeville Road, Douty, to Hanford-Armona but the alignment isn't as clear pre-WWII.  I don't think any of the roads I listed above all still owned by Caltrans anymore asides from part of 19th 1/2 Ave since part of it is still 41.  But that's one hell of an upgrade that happened back in the 1960s, I imagine that the military presence was the primary instigator because nearby routes like 65/69/245, 216, 201, 137, and 63 still have the sudden 90 degree turns.

In regards to relinquishment, it sounds like the signs largely stay if the legislative definition doesn't change and there is something that spells out who is maintaining the portion.
Logged

coatimundi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 797
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Marina, CA
  • Last Login: March 24, 2020, 11:28:13 AM
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #49 on: September 20, 2016, 04:20:25 PM »

Everything related to the original alignment is on reply 38, I also checked out history on 43 and the LRNs before.  Basically the pre-64 alignment split off from the current one at 7th Ave west on East Lacey.  From there it took 7th Street through downtown Hanford, Garner Ave to West Lacey, West Lacey to 14th Ave south to Armona, 14th Ave to Front Street, Front Street west to Hanford-Armona Road, Hanford-Armona west to Lemoore and 19th 1/2 Ave, 19th 1/2 Ave south to Jackson, and Jackson Ave west to where it merges back into the post-64 route.

Basically 198 was all over the place and zig-zagged through all the little farm towns in Kings County.  I have a suspicion about Grangeville Road, Douty, to Hanford-Armona but the alignment isn't as clear pre-WWII.  I don't think any of the roads I listed above all still owned by Caltrans anymore asides from part of 19th 1/2 Ave since part of it is still 41.  But that's one hell of an upgrade that happened back in the 1960s, I imagine that the military presence was the primary instigator because nearby routes like 65/69/245, 216, 201, 137, and 63 still have the sudden 90 degree turns.

I didn't look at your linked post, but it's shown pretty clearly on the 1927 topo map, even though it's not actually signed as 198. It shows it continuing on Lacey all the way to Highway 41, skipping Lemoore, then south to Jackson. I can't really make out what you're describing, but that sounds a bit different. There's a '47 and a '57 online too, and they may show different routings. It's unfortunate that Thomas Brothers never found Hanford, even today, to be worth having an inset map for, so it'd be a bit harder to determine the routings within town just on that alone. I would trust Thomas Brothers more than the USGS, but maybe that's just me.

I think you're missing my point on the signage. In Hayward, it's completely been removed on all the highways except for 92, and that's only because the definition says that they should sign it. If you look at the Mission Boulevard intersection, it's a weird looking sign too, so it's very likely city, as is the 880 shield below it. 92's endpoint after that relinquishment is really odd though: still within Hayward but not at another state highway. Maybe there's an explanation for that, but it seems silly. Why continue it past I-880 at all?
Google Maps, and probably other online software, seem to not give a harry f*ck about whether or not the route number is correct. Maybe they figure that, as long as they're more accurate than Apple Maps, they can be okay at that low bar. But it creates an issue where, I'm sure, someone, somewhere is looking for the route number. It's just like, a few months ago, I drove some women to a yarn expo in Santa Clara (I went to explore and watch a movie), and one had printed directions that had the exit number on it. It just happened to be one of those places in the state that actually had exit numbers on the signs, but what if it hadn't been? I knew where to get off, but if she was driving, she would have just kept going, looking for that exit number. Same with the route numbers: "Exit at CA 238 and turn right". Google Maps doesn't know any better. Maybe that's why they're still on the BGS'?
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.