AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them  (Read 25094 times)

emory

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 348
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: March 31, 2020, 02:56:39 AM
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #50 on: September 20, 2016, 05:55:40 PM »

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.

And yet Caltrans still turned over SR 39 to Buena Park south of I-5.

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."

The difference is while Florida more often relinquishes state highways to county control, California more often relinquishes state highways to city control, so they won't use the county pentagon.

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.

But does a US highway have to be state maintained to count? Can't it just be a city controlled street carrying the federal designation? We do it with business routes all the time.


A quick aside: I noticed the Los Angeles International Airport segment of Route 170 has finally been deleted from its definition, narrowing it down to Route 5 to Route 101.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2016, 05:58:17 PM by emory »
Logged

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 #51 on: September 20, 2016, 06:22:02 PM »

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.

And yet Caltrans still turned over SR 39 to Buena Park south of I-5.

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."

The difference is while Florida more often relinquishes state highways to county control, California more often relinquishes state highways to city control, so they won't use the county pentagon.

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.

But does a US highway have to be state maintained to count? Can't it just be a city controlled street carrying the federal designation? We do it with business routes all the time.


A quick aside: I noticed the Los Angeles International Airport segment of Route 170 has finally been deleted from its definition, narrowing it down to Route 5 to Route 101.

Wait what? who maintains the ggb then? 
Logged

sdmichael

Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #52 on: September 20, 2016, 06:22:38 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.

But does a US highway have to be state maintained to count? Can't it just be a city controlled street carrying the federal designation? We do it with business routes all the time.

A business route isn't always a State Highway. In fact, they rarely are and when they are, they are cosigned with an actual State route along at least a portion of the business route. So no, it can't just be a city controlled street carrying ANY designation, officially. There may be signage directing to the continuation, however. Do you think the State would want liability for a route they don't maintain?
Logged

sdmichael

Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #53 on: September 20, 2016, 06:23:49 PM »

Wait what? who maintains the ggb then?

The Golden Gate Bridge and Transit District maintains the bridge, as they always have. It remains as the only major bay crossing that is not under State control.
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 #54 on: September 20, 2016, 06:39:03 PM »

Wait what? who maintains the ggb then?

The Golden Gate Bridge and Transit District maintains the bridge, as they always have. It remains as the only major bay crossing that is not under State control.

Right, the same people who run the ferries and a few North Bay bus lines. That's why the Golden Gate is the only bridge thus far to go cashless.
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 #55 on: September 20, 2016, 10:57:10 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."

The difference is while Florida more often relinquishes state highways to county control, California more often relinquishes state highways to city control, so they won't use the county pentagon.



Yeah but even in Florida you get County Routes traversing cities.  Orlando has a ton of them, CR 526 and CR 15 were among some of the most well known.  CR 15 is actually a County Route gap in state maintenance on FL 15.
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 #56 on: September 20, 2016, 11:13:43 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'?

Actually it's not too bad trying to find the 60s 198 route through Hanford and Kings County:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239528~5511852:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1963?sort=Date&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Date;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=54&trs=86

Basically if you compare the map to an overlay of what roads exist out in the field it's not too hard to determine the routing.  Granted it's not as good as something like an insert map of a city grid but there probably really wasn't much since Hanford had about 10,000 people back in 1960 and Lemoore was about 2,500.  So the route would have looked like this prior to 1964:

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Kit+Carson+Elementary+School,+9895+7th+Ave,+Hanford,+CA+93230/Hanford,+CA/Armona,+CA/Lemoore+Station,+CA/@36.2722448,-119.819807,11z/data=!4m61!4m60!1m15!1m1!1s0x8094db5d1ce5bcbf:0xa00177a92e45e524!2m2!1d-119.5823395!2d36.3297541!3m4!1m2!1d-119.5975287!2d36.3280118!3s0x8094db510d2a2e9f:0xbdac9384491ad1ff!3m4!1m2!1d-119.6206819!2d36.3279994!3s0x8094c4a75a9a139d:0xdb6684d278eb095e!1m15!1m1!1s0x8094c37b19af7a53:0x1b16a7e4c563f490!2m2!1d-119.6456844!2d36.3274502!3m4!1m2!1d-119.658193!2d36.3269358!3s0x8094c384ef50f909:0x2004a7f594a3b1c0!3m4!1m2!1d-119.7089886!2d36.3269517!3s0x8094c16888c6d01b:0x819b7665f10df733!1m20!1m1!1s0x8094c150c42f0faf:0x9f34088f112febd8!2m2!1d-119.7084642!2d36.3157833!3m4!1m2!1d-119.7320876!2d36.3135231!3s0x8094c123c4434939:0x7ac54f560eedcbe6!3m4!1m2!1d-119.8057537!2d36.3133953!3s0x8094bf76b78b1c4f:0x7f8024e4d6ca795e!3m4!1m2!1d-119.8146573!2d36.2549406!3s0x8094b8eac88f8a61:0x3033ea37ae3fc299!1m5!1m1!1s0x8094bc133bd44b8d:0x7ceb9974681ab113!2m2!1d-119.9075516!2d36.2624481!3e0?hl=en

I don't have the full background on when the 41 Expressway at Lemoore was built but it seems 19th 1/2 was cut off by it.

Yeah no, that's pretty strange to have it not cut back to I-880.  Are you talking about sign assemblies like this one?

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6697043,-122.0816977,3a,37.5y,208.4h,78.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1susWeTDmyj_EVYCsVTE7f4w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Actually I'm find the inverse to be a problem recently with the J Band of county routes.  For some reason Google has them still plotted out online like J41 but there isn't a single sign in the field anymore that I can find with the route number.  They still do a crappy job at get county and state routes correct in a lot of states.  Nothing replaces good field signage at the end of the day for navigation...it's not like all these techno maps are any more reliable than a good old paper map.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2016, 11:19:54 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 #57 on: September 21, 2016, 12:38:26 AM »

Yes, that's the weird sign assembly. Another on Watkins Street:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6672074,-122.0806722,3a,75y,332.3h,82.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sm59UI8kdll6C2dsGRhmcAQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

There's another with 92 just a block away at D Street, but that erroneously (and totally unnecessarily) signs 185.
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.669908,-122.081902,3a,75y,178.44h,86.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRuH2qM-H__hpXnaNCW62dg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

What you linked is different from the '27 routing, and I think is different from the '47.
You mentioned WWII, but Lemoore NAS, built in 1961, would have been the big reason why the freeway/expressway was built at around that time, and why 198 was rerouted.

If only everyone could be like Monterey County, and consistently and clearly sign their numbered county routes.
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 #58 on: September 21, 2016, 12:51:48 AM »

Right, the freeway configuration was completed in 1964 after the Naval Station opened up a couple years prior.  There was also Lemoore Army Airfield in WWII out there just south of the present Naval Base in addition to an supplemental field called "Summit Lake" where the current airfield is. The actual remains of the Army Airfield are just south of present 198 and is used on the crop lands:

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.2490051,-119.9448112,1155m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

http://military.wikia.com/wiki/Lemoore_Army_Air_Field

Apparently the land was eventually sold to the city of Lemoore who turned it over to the Navy in late 1950s.  So basically there was probably some influence that Airfield played during the second World War on the alignment of 198, like you said there was at least one change you saw for sure.

As for 92....is that a 12x18 in the first pic?  God that's about the ugliest shield in the entire state.  :-D
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 #59 on: September 21, 2016, 02:40:07 AM »

like you said there was at least one change you saw for sure.

No, the routing you linked is about the same routing on the topos (I'm not sure if you've reviewed these, but they're available online for free if you need the link). The exception was that Kit Carson Elementary was then called Joseph Stalin School for Tolerance and Proletariat Sciences. And that curve at the 41 junction wasn't built until a bit later.
If you're obsessive over the Hanford stuff, the '47 Hanford quad topo shows a different routing within town. That northern jog west of town wasn't yet constructed, so it turns north on another street in DowHan (what the kids call it nowadays) before continuing west.

Lemoore AAF was pretty far away from Lemoore and, from what I understand, was relatively insignificant in the broader spectrum. Even that link you posted says "was a dirt air field usable only in dry weather. It nevertheless was used by the AAF Western Flying Training Command as a processing and training field." The road to Coalinga was already there when the AAF was built, so there was no rerouting. Westhaven should be the quad for that area. Unless they were trying to hide it from the kaiser and kept it off maps...
I mean, these hastily-built and quickly-abandoned air fields were really common across the Southwest. Arizona has/had a ton of them. I don't think Lemoore's was ever intended to be a permanent facility, so it wouldn't have even prompted rerouting.
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 #60 on: September 21, 2016, 01:23:23 PM »

There's another with 92 just a block away at D Street, but that erroneously (and totally unnecessarily) signs 185.
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.669908,-122.081902,3a,75y,178.44h,86.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRuH2qM-H__hpXnaNCW62dg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Regarding Hayward: I wonder if the relinquishments in that area relate to the reconfiguration of Mission, Foothill, and one of the lettered streets to create a one-way loop around the downtown. 

The 185 signage actually fits with the post-relinquishment route definition for the Hayward segment.  To quote cahighways:

Quote
(b) The relinquished former portion of Route 185 within the City of Hayward is not a state highway and is not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the relinquished former portion of Route 185, the City of Hayward shall maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 185 or to the state highway system, as applicable.

But this only highlights the absurdity of a legislative-based numbering system: Route 14U is signed, the continuation of Route 185 where it has been relinquished is signed in this example, yet Route 18 between Palmdale and US 395 is barely signed despite being rather definitively a major interregional state highway.

Logged
Chris Sampang

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 #61 on: September 21, 2016, 06:19:24 PM »

The 185 signage actually fits with the post-relinquishment route definition for the Hayward segment.

So I don't know that I was totally clear on where that signage is, but it's on the traffic signal at D Street on the southbound-only Mission Boulevard. So there is no 185 south of there. Even when there was, it was for another block. I guess it could be referring to the loop you can take to reach 185 north, but it seems like it'd be more appropriate to sign 238 if you're going to sogn a route there.

But, yeah, the relinquishments were absolutely related to the Hayward Loop. Maybe Caltrans said, "No, that's stupid and we are not going to be a part of it."
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 #62 on: September 21, 2016, 06:49:36 PM »

The 185 signage actually fits with the post-relinquishment route definition for the Hayward segment.

So I don't know that I was totally clear on where that signage is, but it's on the traffic signal at D Street on the southbound-only Mission Boulevard. So there is no 185 south of there. Even when there was, it was for another block. I guess it could be referring to the loop you can take to reach 185 north, but it seems like it'd be more appropriate to sign 238 if you're going to sogn a route there.

Could argue that "185" (or at least pre-relinquishment 185) lasts one more block to 92/238!  Of course, that's not exactly navigationally useful, and also the opposite of the other extreme that CalTrans has shown in the past (signing the upcoming route before a route has ended, i.e. I-80 west in SF signed for US 101 from about the late 1980s onward, US 101 south from the 1980s to about 2007 signed for I-5 between the Four-Level and the East Los Angeles Interchange).

But, yeah, the relinquishments were absolutely related to the Hayward Loop. Maybe Caltrans said, "No, that's stupid and we are not going to be a part of it."


Similar thing happened in Sacramento when Route 160 was cut north of Freeport and south of the North Sacramento Freeway: the city wanted to be able to use their different maintenance standards for 15th and 16th Streets (as CalTrans standards require specific types of lighting masts, etc.).  As a result, the portion of F Street in Alkali Flat that once carried Route 160 south (and before that, US 99E and US 40 south) between 12th and 15th Streets  now has a small-diameter roundabout at 13th Street.
Logged
Chris Sampang

emory

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 348
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: March 31, 2020, 02:56:39 AM
Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #63 on: September 21, 2016, 09:07:02 PM »

Yeah but even in Florida you get County Routes traversing cities.  Orlando has a ton of them, CR 526 and CR 15 were among some of the most well known.  CR 15 is actually a County Route gap in state maintenance on FL 15.

They traverse cities but are still county maintained, while in California major roads that traverse cities are often maintained by the city. Speaking of FL 15, a small stretch of it is actually maintained by the City of Orlando and is not officially part of FL 15.
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 #64 on: September 21, 2016, 10:32:08 PM »

Yep and even that section of FL/CR 15 still has shields reflecting that the route exists.  Really it goes to the argument that poises the question; are routes signed for navigation or for displaying who maintains them?  Given that cities exist in counties personally I don't see why a city couldn't sign part of a county route they maintain or for that matter even part of a state highway.  The problem with California is that it always goes back to legislative definitions on everything which really can much things up.  Why not a scenario where the legislature decides what sections of highways are maintained at the state level and give Caltrans the authority to decide what roads can actually be "signed" as state highways?  I know that sounds an awful lot like the pre-64 LRN system but allow more flexibility to maintain signage on relinquished sections of state highways...or even expansion regardless of who maintains them.
Logged

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 #65 on: September 23, 2016, 04:07:23 PM »

Yeah but even in Florida you get County Routes traversing cities.  Orlando has a ton of them, CR 526 and CR 15 were among some of the most well known.  CR 15 is actually a County Route gap in state maintenance on FL 15.

They traverse cities but are still county maintained, while in California major roads that traverse cities are often maintained by the city. Speaking of FL 15, a small stretch of it is actually maintained by the City of Orlando and is not officially part of FL 15.
Yep and even that section of FL/CR 15 still has shields reflecting that the route exists.  Really it goes to the argument that poises the question; are routes signed for navigation or for displaying who maintains them?  Given that cities exist in counties personally I don't see why a city couldn't sign part of a county route they maintain or for that matter even part of a state highway.  The problem with California is that it always goes back to legislative definitions on everything which really can much things up.  Why not a scenario where the legislature decides what sections of highways are maintained at the state level and give Caltrans the authority to decide what roads can actually be "signed" as state highways?  I know that sounds an awful lot like the pre-64 LRN system but allow more flexibility to maintain signage on relinquished sections of state highways...or even expansion regardless of who maintains them.
Had family & friends in and around Bennington, VT for many years; visited them at least on a yearly basis in the 1990's.  One thing I remember were small rectangular signs on VT 9 and US 7 at the town outskirts stating, essentially "end of state maintenance" and, conversely, "begin state maintenance", while the route shields were well-maintained, including the downtown 7/9 junction, in the town itself.  Considering that signage of local continuations of relinquished California state highways is at best sporadic -- as well as situational (it seems that some jurisdictions just don't want to "encourage" through traffic by maintaining reassurance shielding), similar "legalese" signage might be posted in CA (keeping Caltrans and local attorneys satisfied), with Caltrans actually posting reassurance/directional shields on the continuation routes per the actual relinquishment agreements, which are often ignored -- and unenforced.     
Logged

sdmichael

Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #66 on: September 23, 2016, 05:22:55 PM »

Yep and even that section of FL/CR 15 still has shields reflecting that the route exists.  Really it goes to the argument that poises the question; are routes signed for navigation or for displaying who maintains them?  Given that cities exist in counties personally I don't see why a city couldn't sign part of a county route they maintain or for that matter even part of a state highway.  The problem with California is that it always goes back to legislative definitions on everything which really can much things up.  Why not a scenario where the legislature decides what sections of highways are maintained at the state level and give Caltrans the authority to decide what roads can actually be "signed" as state highways?  I know that sounds an awful lot like the pre-64 LRN system but allow more flexibility to maintain signage on relinquished sections of state highways...or even expansion regardless of who maintains them.
Had family & friends in and around Bennington, VT for many years; visited them at least on a yearly basis in the 1990's.  One thing I remember were small rectangular signs on VT 9 and US 7 at the town outskirts stating, essentially "end of state maintenance" and, conversely, "begin state maintenance", while the route shields were well-maintained, including the downtown 7/9 junction, in the town itself.  Considering that signage of local continuations of relinquished California state highways is at best sporadic -- as well as situational (it seems that some jurisdictions just don't want to "encourage" through traffic by maintaining reassurance shielding), similar "legalese" signage might be posted in CA (keeping Caltrans and local attorneys satisfied), with Caltrans actually posting reassurance/directional shields on the continuation routes per the actual relinquishment agreements, which are often ignored -- and unenforced.     

No. In California, relinquished State Highways generally tend to be still signed as a "connection" for navigational purposes to the rest of the State Highway that remains. Local agencies are responsible for the maintenance of those relinquished sections, signage included. Why would Caltrans still pay for maintenance of a roadway they no longer have in their system?

Vermont laws/practices also don't apply in California. They may have entirely different rules regarding roadway maintenance, routing, and signage. So, not a very good comparison.
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 #67 on: September 23, 2016, 07:20:39 PM »

Make the localities the relinquishment was handed to use the appropriate signage....never said Caltrans ought to pay for them.  I'm just throwing a hypothetical out there about the legislature deciding what routes are maintained on the state level and having Caltrans actually decide what is a "signed" highway regardless of who maintained it.  Granted that would require a change in state laws and would be sort of the pre-64 LRN days so it would never happen...but one can dream. But for what it's worth I still don't understand why a County Route couldn't be signed by a city or town.
Logged

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • 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 #68 on: September 23, 2016, 08:50:31 PM »

Make the localities the relinquishment was handed to use the appropriate signage....never said Caltrans ought to pay for them.

Already required, usually. But the requirement is too often ignored, or unenforced. Not that I favor it, but if Caltrans paid for proper signage, that increases the odds that it would be/stay posted.
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

sdmichael

Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #69 on: September 23, 2016, 08:54:47 PM »

Make the localities the relinquishment was handed to use the appropriate signage....never said Caltrans ought to pay for them.  I'm just throwing a hypothetical out there about the legislature deciding what routes are maintained on the state level and having Caltrans actually decide what is a "signed" highway regardless of who maintained it.  Granted that would require a change in state laws and would be sort of the pre-64 LRN days so it would never happen...but one can dream. But for what it's worth I still don't understand why a County Route couldn't be signed by a city or town.

What is this "pre-64 LRN days" you speak of? State Highways were signed then and now. Some were unsigned, as are some still now. How is that different than today?
Logged

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 #70 on: September 23, 2016, 10:28:06 PM »

Yep and even that section of FL/CR 15 still has shields reflecting that the route exists.  Really it goes to the argument that poises the question; are routes signed for navigation or for displaying who maintains them?  Given that cities exist in counties personally I don't see why a city couldn't sign part of a county route they maintain or for that matter even part of a state highway.  The problem with California is that it always goes back to legislative definitions on everything which really can much things up.  Why not a scenario where the legislature decides what sections of highways are maintained at the state level and give Caltrans the authority to decide what roads can actually be "signed" as state highways?  I know that sounds an awful lot like the pre-64 LRN system but allow more flexibility to maintain signage on relinquished sections of state highways...or even expansion regardless of who maintains them.
Had family & friends in and around Bennington, VT for many years; visited them at least on a yearly basis in the 1990's.  One thing I remember were small rectangular signs on VT 9 and US 7 at the town outskirts stating, essentially "end of state maintenance" and, conversely, "begin state maintenance", while the route shields were well-maintained, including the downtown 7/9 junction, in the town itself.  Considering that signage of local continuations of relinquished California state highways is at best sporadic -- as well as situational (it seems that some jurisdictions just don't want to "encourage" through traffic by maintaining reassurance shielding), similar "legalese" signage might be posted in CA (keeping Caltrans and local attorneys satisfied), with Caltrans actually posting reassurance/directional shields on the continuation routes per the actual relinquishment agreements, which are often ignored -- and unenforced.     

No. In California, relinquished State Highways generally tend to be still signed as a "connection" for navigational purposes to the rest of the State Highway that remains. Local agencies are responsible for the maintenance of those relinquished sections, signage included. Why would Caltrans still pay for maintenance of a roadway they no longer have in their system?

Vermont laws/practices also don't apply in California. They may have entirely different rules regarding roadway maintenance, routing, and signage. So, not a very good comparison.
Make the localities the relinquishment was handed to use the appropriate signage....never said Caltrans ought to pay for them.

Already required, usually. But the requirement is too often ignored, or unenforced. Not that I favor it, but if Caltrans paid for proper signage, that increases the odds that it would be/stay posted.
Pretty much my idea to a "T".  I certainly don't envision Caltrans continuing to maintain relinquished routes -- just maintain some sort of real oversight regarding the signage of such routes -- something that clearly isn't being done consistently these days.  Even signage of currently commissioned routes (e.g., CA 238 south of CA 84) is often missing in action.  Fine for the locals, who don't need it, but for commercial traffic, area newbies, and even tourists (particularly older folks who eschew GPS), the presence of such signage is, well, "reassuring"! -- which is the whole idea in the first place!  It's becoming increasingly obvious that Caltrans is, either actively or passively, ignoring as much of their urban/suburban/exurban surface components as they possibly can.  Whether this is a deliberate internal policy or simply a longstanding reshuffling of priorities is a matter of conjecture (if jroush wishes to chime in on this, an insider view would be welcome!). 

And yes, I do realize Vermont is indeed different than California -- but the situation regarding signage is similar -- one state is doing the jurisdictional dance well, while the other isn't.  Granted, there might be some additional obstacles found in once place versus the other, but these obstacles are addressable; there's no need for them to ossify until they become permanent blockages.  I have merely suggested an approach to the problem -- but some folks either don't see a problem or have adopted a hyper-cynical set of viewpoints that dismiss the possibility of any policy -- or real/manifested -- alterations.  Yes, there exists a status quo regarding the issues discussed in this thread -- but these are simply policies, largely internal -- not the revealed word of God!  And as such, these indicators of the status quo don't really need apologists.  Sometimes shaking things up a bit -- throwing out ideas not previously considered -- can be a positive thing.  IMO, deference to "a priori" litanies and concepts is at least counterproductive and an obstacle to effectuality -- and at worst contributory to the suppression of open discourse.   Just because a situation exists doesn't mean that it has the right to do so permanently!     
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 #71 on: September 23, 2016, 10:50:19 PM »

Make the localities the relinquishment was handed to use the appropriate signage....never said Caltrans ought to pay for them.  I'm just throwing a hypothetical out there about the legislature deciding what routes are maintained on the state level and having Caltrans actually decide what is a "signed" highway regardless of who maintained it.  Granted that would require a change in state laws and would be sort of the pre-64 LRN days so it would never happen...but one can dream. But for what it's worth I still don't understand why a County Route couldn't be signed by a city or town.

What is this "pre-64 LRN days" you speak of? State Highways were signed then and now. Some were unsigned, as are some still now. How is that different than today?

Pre-Renumbering of the LRNs to match the signage.  Is it not true that the Divisions of Highways could act on their own authority to designate routes before everything was switched over the current legislative system?  Again...total hypothetical, it would require a change of approach in terms of routes being completely navigational in regards to signage.  It's not a problem exclusive to state highways, there are countless lettered county routes that I can think of that aren't signed at all.

Yep and even that section of FL/CR 15 still has shields reflecting that the route exists.  Really it goes to the argument that poises the question; are routes signed for navigation or for displaying who maintains them?  Given that cities exist in counties personally I don't see why a city couldn't sign part of a county route they maintain or for that matter even part of a state highway.  The problem with California is that it always goes back to legislative definitions on everything which really can much things up.  Why not a scenario where the legislature decides what sections of highways are maintained at the state level and give Caltrans the authority to decide what roads can actually be "signed" as state highways?  I know that sounds an awful lot like the pre-64 LRN system but allow more flexibility to maintain signage on relinquished sections of state highways...or even expansion regardless of who maintains them.
Had family & friends in and around Bennington, VT for many years; visited them at least on a yearly basis in the 1990's.  One thing I remember were small rectangular signs on VT 9 and US 7 at the town outskirts stating, essentially "end of state maintenance" and, conversely, "begin state maintenance", while the route shields were well-maintained, including the downtown 7/9 junction, in the town itself.  Considering that signage of local continuations of relinquished California state highways is at best sporadic -- as well as situational (it seems that some jurisdictions just don't want to "encourage" through traffic by maintaining reassurance shielding), similar "legalese" signage might be posted in CA (keeping Caltrans and local attorneys satisfied), with Caltrans actually posting reassurance/directional shields on the continuation routes per the actual relinquishment agreements, which are often ignored -- and unenforced.     

No. In California, relinquished State Highways generally tend to be still signed as a "connection" for navigational purposes to the rest of the State Highway that remains. Local agencies are responsible for the maintenance of those relinquished sections, signage included. Why would Caltrans still pay for maintenance of a roadway they no longer have in their system?

Vermont laws/practices also don't apply in California. They may have entirely different rules regarding roadway maintenance, routing, and signage. So, not a very good comparison.
Make the localities the relinquishment was handed to use the appropriate signage....never said Caltrans ought to pay for them.

Already required, usually. But the requirement is too often ignored, or unenforced. Not that I favor it, but if Caltrans paid for proper signage, that increases the odds that it would be/stay posted.
Pretty much my idea to a "T".  I certainly don't envision Caltrans continuing to maintain relinquished routes -- just maintain some sort of real oversight regarding the signage of such routes -- something that clearly isn't being done consistently these days.  Even signage of currently commissioned routes (e.g., CA 238 south of CA 84) is often missing in action.  Fine for the locals, who don't need it, but for commercial traffic, area newbies, and even tourists (particularly older folks who eschew GPS), the presence of such signage is, well, "reassuring"! -- which is the whole idea in the first place!  It's becoming increasingly obvious that Caltrans is, either actively or passively, ignoring as much of their urban/suburban/exurban surface components as they possibly can.  Whether this is a deliberate internal policy or simply a longstanding reshuffling of priorities is a matter of conjecture (if jroush wishes to chime in on this, an insider view would be welcome!). 

And yes, I do realize Vermont is indeed different than California -- but the situation regarding signage is similar -- one state is doing the jurisdictional dance well, while the other isn't.  Granted, there might be some additional obstacles found in once place versus the other, but these obstacles are addressable; there's no need for them to ossify until they become permanent blockages.  I have merely suggested an approach to the problem -- but some folks either don't see a problem or have adopted a hyper-cynical set of viewpoints that dismiss the possibility of any policy -- or real/manifested -- alterations.  Yes, there exists a status quo regarding the issues discussed in this thread -- but these are simply policies, largely internal -- not the revealed word of God!  And as such, these indicators of the status quo don't really need apologists.  Sometimes shaking things up a bit -- throwing out ideas not previously considered -- can be a positive thing.  IMO, deference to "a priori" litanies and concepts is at least counterproductive and an obstacle to effectuality -- and at worst contributory to the suppression of open discourse.   Just because a situation exists doesn't mean that it has the right to do so permanently!     

Thank god someone else doesn't think the status quo is some sort of "absolute."  :-D
« Last Edit: September 23, 2016, 10:53:05 PM by Max Rockatansky »
Logged

sdmichael

Re: Discontinuous California Routes.... and the plan to never complete them
« Reply #72 on: September 24, 2016, 11:06:54 AM »

I think you think this change in 1964 was more than it was. All that was done was to align the legislative routes with the sign routes. LRN 4 became Sign Route 99. LRN 26 became Sign Route 10 (I-10) and so on. Routes were still defined by the legislature then as they are now.

You still have not clarified this idea. You seem to want local agencies to start signing their own State Highways, yet have them NOT be State Highways. That would seem to defeat the purpose of having a State Highway. Caltrans, whether we like it or not, is divesting itself of quite a few of the roadways they acquired around 1935 when the counties/cities could not afford to maintain them. Now they want them back. Seems fair enough to me.

Yes, signage could be better for both County and State routes. Part of it could simply be that Caltrans or the County do not know the signs are missing. How about informing them of this instead of trying to create some new system?
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 #73 on: September 24, 2016, 11:31:11 AM »

Because this is all really just banter and I don't have much expectation of change.  Nor do I have the incentive considering it's only been five years since I've been back here and I don't think it will be many more years until the next transfer out comes through.  So with that in mind, I rather just enjoy what I can out on the road and get my personal bucket list done of all the secondary stuff this state has to offer rather than trying to get Caltrans or some County agency with a limited budget on the line.  Besides when I have tried with Caltrans via email on when I was here originally usually it just disappeared into a black hole.  That's probably because they handle so many inquiries but it was always nice to get actual answers or an acknowledgement that they received it at all.  BUT.....that was years ago, so who's to say there could be a better response to that kind of thing?

I just enjoy the discussion that's all, I feel like I'm ticking everyone off by suggesting maybe something new in regards to Caltrans.  But....one could say that ever since Caltrans was created (I know it was 1972) that the state's interest in roadways has declined massively.  Really you throw the EPA Act on top of everything and a great deal of the major projects that were "supposedly" going to happen have been abandoned.  I don't have a problem with route relinquishment, especially in urban corridors where there are usually freeways that serve the function that a surface highway used to.  The problem for me is when you have gapped routes with no signage in between, why not either just remove all the signs or continue to sign the route until it is completely relinquished?  That doesn't have to be Caltrans that has to do it on the relinquished portions, a county or city provided they have the budget can post a couple reassurance signs.  Some do...some don't, it's just inconsistent.

Now with the county routes though, I think it's more a function of what county is doing the signage.  For example; Mariposa County is excellent at getting County Route signage up while others like Tulare almost never have them at all. 
« Last Edit: September 24, 2016, 11:35:41 AM by Max Rockatansky »
Logged

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 #74 on: September 24, 2016, 03:06:03 PM »

It's not so much the lack of continuation/reassurance signage on relinquished routes, it's the inconsistency (likely a product of the individual Caltrans district's priorities) with which such signage is deployed.  Language in the various relinquishment agreements specify that signage be maintained (ostensibly by the local jurisdiction to whom the route was relinquished) -- it would seem to be in the best interest of all concerned to actually do so -- to provide a through route for regional traffic passing through the relinquished portion of the route, and by doing so enhance the potential for commerce (and sales tax $$) along that route.  That being said, I can see the point in not signing portions that have no continuation value (such as former CA 2 west of I-405 in Santa Monica; if one wants to delineate the route, simply place "Historic US 66" signs along the former alignment -- that would likely be more useful than green CA 2 shields).  But sections like any or all portions of CA 1 in the greater L.A. area would be appropriate for full signage regardless of facility maintenance differences -- providing a referential "spine" for tourists and/or commercial traffic in the beach cities. 
Thank god someone else doesn't think the status quo is some sort of "absolute."  :-D
And we thank you for your support!  We "radical utilitarians" (not an oxymoron!) occasionally need to rail against the blatantly stupid and willfully ignorant!  On that note, there's a funny situation up here in San Jose:  While CA 82 legally terminates at the I-880/The Alameda interchange near the Santa Clara city line, there is a lone "straggler " CA 82 shield southbound (actually, eastward) on The Alameda a few blocks east of Race Street -- well within the relinquished portion -- and it's not an old  shield -- it's a 3d shield with "82" centered within -- but it's the only one anywhere along the relinquished route (although the BGS's on CA 87 reference it on the San Carlos Ave. exits).  Given the lack of "end" signage at the 880/82 junction, this seems like the feeblest attempt yet to effect continuation signage over a former alignment. 
My solution (and I've already contacted the City of San Jose as well as Caltrans District 4 about this) is to install "Historic US 101" signage along most of the relinquished route (except for the late-70's "detour" away from downtown) rather than CA 82 signs -- seeing that US 101, pre '64, utilized these surface streets. 
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.